Revelation 1:1?

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi The Catholic, what book are you reading?

Nita, I understand the “one” of John 10:30 to be one in essence or nature.

newadvent.org/search/?safe=active&cx=000299817191393086628%3Aifmbhlr-8x0&q=%22I+and+my+Father+are+one%22+&cof=FORID%3A9#932

newadvent.org/etc/search.htm?safe=active&cx=000299817191393086628%3Aifmbhlr-8x0&q=one+essence&cof=FORID%3A9#935

newadvent.org/search/?safe=active&cx=000299817191393086628%3Aifmbhlr-8x0&q=I+and+my+Father+are+one+essence&cof=FORID%3A9#951

1. But as “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,” the same Wisdom which was begotten of God condescended also to be created among men. There is a reference to this in the word, “The Lord created me in the beginning of His ways.” For the beginning of His ways is the Head of the Church, which is Christ endued with human nature (homine indutus), by whom it was purposed that there should be given to us a pattern of living, that is, a sure way by which we might reach God. For by no other path was it possible for us to return but by humility, who fell by pride, according as it was said to our first creation, “Taste, and you shall be as gods.” Of this humility, therefore, that is to say, of the way by which it was needful for us to return, our Restorer Himself has deemed it meet to exhibit an example in His own person, “who thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant;” in order that He might be created Man in the beginning of His ways, the Word by whom all things were made. Wherefore, in so far as He is the Only-begotten, He has no brethren; but in so far as He is the First-begotten, He has deemed it worthy of Him to give the name of brethren to all those who, subsequently to and by means of His pre-eminence, are born again into the grace of God through the adoption of sons, according to the truth commended to us by apostolic teaching. Thus, then, the Son according to nature (naturalis filius) was born of the very substance of the Father, the only one so born, subsisting as that which the Father is, God of God, Light of Light. We, on the other hand, are not the light by nature, but are enlightened by that Light, so that we may be able to shine in wisdom. For, as one says, “that was the true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world.” Therefore we add to the faith of things eternal likewise the temporal dispensation of our Lord, which He deemed it worthy of Him to bear for us and to minister in behalf of our salvation.

newadvent.org/fathers/1304.htm

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Wherefore He says, “He that has seen Me, has seen the Father.” “If any one has seen Me, he shall also behold Him.” What He says is of this kind: “It is not possible to see either Me or Him.” For Philip sought the knowledge which is by sight, and since he thought that he had so seen Christ, he desired in like manner to see the Father; but Jesus shows him that he had not even seen Himself. And if any one here call knowledge, sight, I do not contradict him, for, “he that has known Me,” says Christ, “has known the Father.” Yet He did not say this, but desiring to establish the Consubstantiality, declared, “he that knows My Essence, knows that of the Father also.” “And what is this?” says some one; “for he who is acquainted with creation knows also God.” Yet all are acquainted with creation, and have seen it, but all do not know God. Besides, let us consider what Philip seeks to see. Is it the wisdom of the Father? Is it His goodness? Not so, but the very whatever God is, the very Essence. To this therefore Christ answers, “He that has seen Me.” Now he that has seen the creation, has not also seen the Essence of God. “If any one has seen Me, he has seen the Father,” He says. Now had He been of a different Essence, He would not have spoken thus. But to make use of a grosser argument, no man that knows not what gold is, can discern the substance of gold in silver. For one nature is not shown by another. Wherefore He rightly rebuked him, saying, “Am I so long with you?” Have you enjoyed such teaching, have you seen miracles wrought with authority, and all belonging to the Godhead, which the Father alone works, sins forgiven, secrets published, death retreating, a creation wrought from earth, and have you not known Me? Because He was clothed with flesh, therefore He said, “Have you not known Me?”

[2.] You have seen the Father; seek not to see more; for in Him you have seen Me. If you have seen Me, be not over-curious; for you have also in Me known Him.

Ver. 10 . “Do you not believe that I am in the Father?”

That is, “I am seen in that Essence.”

“The words that I speak, I speak not of Myself,”

Do you see the exceeding nearness, and the proof of the one Essence?

“The Father that dwells in Me, He does the works.”

How, beginning with words, does He come to works? for that which naturally followed was, that He should say, “the Father speaks the words.” But He puts two things here, both concerning doctrine and miracles. Or it may have been because the words also were works. How then does He them? In another place He says, “If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not.” ( c. x. 37 .) How then says He here that the Father does them? To show this same thing, that there is no interval between the Father and the Son. What He says is this: “The Father would not act in one way, and I in another.” Indeed in another place both He and the Father work; “My Father works hitherto, and I work” ( c. v. 17 ); showing in the first passage the unvaryingness of the works, in the second the identity. And if the obvious meaning of the words denotes humility, marvel not; for after having first said, “Do you not believe?” He then spoke thus, showing that He so modeled His words to bring him to the faith; for He walked in their hearts.

Ver. 11 . “Believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me.”

“You ought not, when you hear of ‘Father’ and ‘Son,’ to seek anything else to the establishing of the relationship as to Essence, but if this is not sufficient to prove to you the Condignity and Consubstantiality, you may learn it even from the works.” Had the, “he that has seen Me, has seen My Father,” been used with respect to works, He would not afterwards have said,

“Or else believe Me for the very works’ sake.” And then to show that He is not only able to do these things, but also other much greater than these, He puts them with excess. For He says not, “I can do greater things than these,” but, what was much more wonderful, “I can give to others also to do greater things than these.”

newadvent.org/fathers/240174.htm

newadvent.org/summa/1039.htm

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

1. But another passage is also seized by those who are fighting against God to the perversion of their hearers: I mean the words “The Son can do nothing of Himself.” John 5:19 To me this saying too seems distinctly declaratory of the Son’s being of the same nature as the Father. For if every rational creature is able to do anything of himself, and the inclination which each has to the worse and to the better is in his own power, but the Son can do nothing of Himself, then the Son is not a creature. And if He is not a creature, then He is of one essence and substance with the Father. Again; no creature can do what he likes. But the Son does what He wills in heaven and in earth. Therefore the Son is not a creature. Again; all creatures are either constituted of contraries or receptive of contraries. But the Son is very righteousness, and immaterial. Therefore the Son is not a creature, and if He is not a creature, He is of one essence and substance with the Father.

newadvent.org/fathers/3202008.htm

newadvent.org/fathers/240161.htm

All (the persons) are one nature, one essence, one will, and are called the Holy Trinity; and these also are haines subsistent, one nature in three persons, and one genus. But the person of the Son is composite in its oneness (unita est), being one made up of two, that is, of divinity and humanity together, which two constitute one. Yet the divinity does not consequently receive any increment, but the Trinity remains as it was. Nor does anything new befall the persons even or the names, but these are eternal and without time. No one, however, was sufficient to know these until the Son being made flesh manifested them, saying: “Father, I have manifested Your name to men; glorify Thou me also, that they may know me as Your Son.” John 17:6 And on the mount the Father spoke, and said, “This is my beloved Son.” Matthew 3:17 And the same sent His Holy Spirit at the Jordan. And thus it was declared to us that there is an Eternal Trinity in equal honour

newadvent.org/fathers/0606.htm

newadvent.org/fathers/2818.htm

 

[Nita]

Nita, I understand the “one” of John 10:30 to be one in essence or nature.

Yes, but the term “Godhead” is also used in speaking of the the oneness or unity of God. The following is from the Encyclopedia on New Advent website:

God, Three Persons of - The term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion, the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these three persons being truly distinct one from another

Nita

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The Biblical Basis of the
Doctrine of the Trinity:
An Outline Study

By Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
apologetics.com

spotlightministries.org.uk/bowmanonthetrinity.htm

 

[The_Catholic]

Hey Daniel. It’s “Jehovah’s Witnesses” by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

I have another coming too, in the mail. It’s called “Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus” by Greek scholar Murray J. Harris

Although I disagree with my friend Karl, his online name Yngwie7 (one of my best friends who I usually hang out with on Friday’s), I understand where he’s coming from and respect his beliefs.

For me the Trinity is easy to accept, or at least the fact that Jesus is Divine, God. Before I became religious I denied the exsistence of God because I would always think “where did God come from? He couldn’t have just ‘always’ existed!” But after Karl’s brother Dave (another one of my good friends) began talking to me alot about God (and back then they believed that Jesus was God) I came to know Christ and began studying the Bible.

My point is that I have set aside my logical common sense intellect and I just look at the Scriptures without any pre-bias. So I’m not going to ponder on how can there be three persons, who are all God, in One God, to the point where I go mad (no pun intended to anyone). I just look at all the Biblical verses that, at least in my eyes, clearly show the Divinity of Jesus Christ. I admit there are some verses, yet only a few, that cause me to really wonder. But there are so many others that give me comfort on the doctrine of the Divinity and Trinity, so I accept it and believe it. Not to mention that so many early christians, along with the Church Fathers, believed in it as well is inspiring.

But I can understand why others do not and I cast no condemnation upon them.

God bless you all

 

[The_Catholic]

Here are some interesting quotes from the Church Fathers about the Divinity of Jesus 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).

 

[The_Catholic]

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]).

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]).

 

[The_Catholic]

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]).

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Catholic, last night I was thinking about God’s willful forgetfulness. After the fall in Genesis 3, God pretended to be dumb for the purpose of getting Adam to confess his sin. God asked Adam, where are you? what have you done?
I believe God knew exactly where Adam and Eve were and he knew exacty what they had done.

Other places we are told outright that God chooses to forget sometimes, for example,

Psalm 103

8The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.

9He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever.

10He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.

11For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.

**12As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us. **

13Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.

14For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.

15As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth.

16For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more.

17But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children’s children;

Deuteronomy 9:27 (King James Version)
Remember thy servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; **look not **unto the stubbornness of this people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin:

Psalm 25:7 (King James Version)
Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness’ sake, O LORD.

Psalm 51:9
Hide your face from my sins and blot out all my iniquity.

Isaiah 43:25
"I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.

Acts 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

Jeremiah 31:34 (King James Version)
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Hebrews 8:12 (King James Version)
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Hebrews 10:17 (King James Version)
And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

Bottom line, God can will himself not to know something, in the case of the above verses our sins after he has forgiven us.

God does not even keep a carbon copy of our list of sins.

In Phil 2:5-11 the Son of God willfully limited himself to incarnate as fully God and fully Man, thus he can choose to limit his own knowledge of anything he chooses, thus if Jesus “lacked” knowledge in Rev 1:1, then it is likely he choose to do such, when he incarnated. Since, God can willfully forget, a lack of knowledge on Jesus part is not proof that he is NOT God. Rev 1:8 and 4:8 plainly tell us that Jesus is Almighty God – it is Jesus whom we expect at the second coming.

Micah 7:19 (New International Version)

 You will again have compassion on us; 
   you will tread our sins underfoot 
   and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.

 

[The_Catholic]

That’s interesting Daniel. I’ve thought about that before too. Also, in the verse where a rich man asks “Good teacher, what must I do to be saved?” Jesus answered “Why do you call me ‘good’? For none is good but God.”

This is another verse some like to use to prove Jesus wasn’t God. But I think Jesus answered like that because the MAN saw Christ as “just another man,” therefore Jesus simply, but clearly, tells him that "no man (mankind) is ‘good’ but God.

It’s interesting.

But please lighten up a bit on my friend Karl, at least ease off on the “poor Bible and language skill” that you say he has. He actually is a very smart individual. He’s learning Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin. And while he admits he has a lot to learn, nevertheless, knowing languages doesn’t mean one will discover the absolute Truth about God. Greek isn’t a magic key. There are many Greek scholars but many still disagree over doctrines. It usually comes down to man’s own interpretation of how he sees Holy Scripture.

Nevertheless, I do agree with you Daniel, but I understand my friend’s beliefs too and respect them.

God bless.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Ok. You may want to loan your friend a copy of Exegetical Fallacies by D. A. Carson.

 

[mich2]

This quote from John is what the Jews said about Jesus. I don’t think that Jesus claimed himself to be equal with God anymore than I believe Jesus was a Sabbath breaker. He might of violated their traditions concerning the Sabbath but I don’t believe he violated the Law of Moses. If the Jews were wrong about him breaking the Sabbath, Isn’t it reasonable that they could have also been wrong about him claiming to be equal with God?

God bless you

However, He did clearly refer Himself as being the Son of God, which, was, in the eyes of the jews, to make Himself equal to God. The argument being that, even in jewish theology, we find the Son of God being equal to the Father.
While they beleived God to be One, they also viewed the unity of holy matrimony as being One flesh (body).

Andre

 

[De_Maria]

Hello Catholic,

This is really long so I’ll try to cut it down to manageable parts.

The main point here is that this fella makes many false assumptions and forgets many doctrines. Or at least he separates doctrines. For instance, we consider Jesus God and man. Yet in one part of the reply he singles out the one God to the detriment of the other man, yet Jesus is both. I’ll try to point this out in the reply.

Also, I’ll reply as though I’m talking to him to make things simpler.

You wrote: And I know that “theos” as used in St. John "And the Word was
“theos” can be explained as not Eternal God, as the same word is used refering
to Satan in “The god “theos” of this age.”

That’s a point I was going to make. The word Θε.ς (Theos) doesn’t always
mean Almighty God in both the new testament and the old (Septuagint). Here
are some examples:

.ν ο.ς . θε.ς το. α…νος το.του .τ.φλωσε (2 Cor. 4.4)
By whom the god of this age has blinded…

ΚΑΙ ε.πε Κ.ριος πρ.ς Μωυσ.ν λ.γων . .δο. δ.δωκ. σε θε.ν Φαρα. (Ex. 7:1)
And the Lord spoke to Moses saying: behold I make you god to pharoah

ο.χ. . …ν κληρονομ.σει σε Χαμ.ς . θε.ς σου , α.τ. κληρονομ.σεις ,
Will you not inherit that which Chemosh your god has caused you to inherit? (Judges.
11:24)

Ο ΘΕΟΣ .στη .ν συναγωγ. θε.ν , .ν μ.σ. δ. θεο.ς διακρινε. .
God stands in the assembly of gods, and in the midst of gods he will judge. (Ps. 82:1)

.γ. ε.πα . θεο. .στε κα. υ.ο. .Υψ.στου π.ντες . (Ps. 82:6)
I said, Ye are gods and all of you sons of the highest

This verse is quoted by Jesus in the Gospel of John:
ï.ê .óôé ãåãñáìì.íïí .í ô. í.ì. .ì.í , .ã. å.ðá , èåï. .óôå ;
Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (Jn. 10:34)

.ôé ð.íôåò ï. èåï. ô.í .èí.í äáéì.íéá
for all the gods of the nations are demons (idols), (Ps. 96:5)

All this is correct. No problem.

So what does John 1:1 mean?
ÅÍ .ñ÷. .í . Ë.ãïò , êá. . Ë.ãïò .í ðñ.ò ô.í Èå.í , êá. Èå.ò .í . Ë.ãïò .
in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and God was the word. (or
“the word was God”)

You had it right the first time, “God was the Word.” Why did you complicate it and confuse yourself?

I would interpret this verse as: “the word was Godly” or “the word was Divine”

The key word here is "I would interpret this verse…

You see, God, in His Wisdom did not leave the Scriptures for personal interpretation. He left His Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15), the ultimate judge (Matt 18:17).

Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) say: “the word was a god.” I don’t like the expression “a
god” but they say it to bring out a point in the grammar of the greek. Let me quote John
1:1-2 word for word:
ÅÍ .ñ÷. .í . Ë.ãïò , êá. . Ë.ãïò .í ðñ.ò ô.í Èå.í , êá. Èå.ò .í . Ë.ãïò . 2
Ï.ôïò .í .í .ñ÷. ðñ.ò ô.í Èå.í .

They add the article in error.

in beginning was the word, and the word was with The God, and God was the word,

Perfect. Now just capitalize “the Word”.

2 This was in beginning with The God.

There you go. Although, it doesn’t translate to English grammatically, rarely does any language translate to another perfectly unless they are from the same etymological family, the idea is clear, God is with God.

Notice how it doesn’t say, “and The God is the word”

Notice how it does say, “And God was the Word.”

or (for the sake of better english)
“and the word was The God.” There is a distinction in the text between “The God” and
“God”. One has the definite article “The” before the word “God” and the other doesn’t
have it. Often in greek when there is no definite article you have to insert “a” to have it
make sense. That’s why the JWs translate Èå.ò as “a god”. However, I don’t think this
is necessary because the word “God” could be qualifying “the word” or describing what
it is like. Therefore it would be understood as: “and the word was Godly/Divine/
Godlike…”

Not so. It is very clear that the Word is God and the Apostles understood this. That is why Scripture says:

**2 Peter 1

1 Simon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained equal faith with us in the justice of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Titus 2

13 Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,**

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

But even if there was no distinction between definite article I wouldn’t interpret this
verse as saying that there was a distinct person in the beginning with God that was also
God and still distinct. “The word” is a personified concept much like wisdom is in
Proverbs chapter 8. At least that’s how I read it. To me it seems like an easier way to
understand this verse. The other option (namely, that there are two distinct persons
here and yet both of them are one God) I don’t understand anyways so it makes more
sense to me to read it in a way that I can understand it.

Again, this is a very personal understanding you present. We, Catholics, don’t present our personal understanding. We present the understanding the Church has been teaching for millenia. In fact, from the time of Jesus Christ.

John 20:28:
κα. .πεκρ.θη Θωμ.ς κα. ε.πεν α.τ. . . Κ.ρι.ς μου κα. . Θε.ς μου .
and Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and My God…

I’ve heard some say that Thomas is using this expression like the way we use the
expression “Oh my God” when something amazing happens. Others say that he was
addressing Christ as “My Lord” and the Father as “My God”. As if to say: “Oh Jesus my
Lord and (as he turned his eyes towards heaven) My God.”

But even if we say that Thomas is calling Jesus God directly here, that still doesn’t
prove that Jesus was Almighty God. As I’ve shown in the beginning, Θε.ς doesn’t
always mean Almighty God.

Again, it does mean that. Primarily because that has been the interpretation of the Church from Apostolic times. They were there and walked with Christ. Your interpretation is 2000 years too late.

Even in the Gospel of John (10:34-35) itself Christ says the
Psalm writer “called them gods, unto whom the word of God came.” Psalm 82 was
written to men.

That makes no difference. You need to take each verse in context.

If I say, “my son is John.” And later say, “my son is Martin.” Am I contradicting myself?

No. I have two sons. One is John and one is Martin. Or, My son’s name may be John Martin.

So when the Bible says that men are called gods, it does not contradict the fact that the Bible also says that “The Word was God” and that Jesus is our “God and Savior” and that God the Father said to God the Son, “8 But to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved justice, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” (Heb 1).

If God could make Moses god to pharoah (Ex. 7:1), surely he could make Jesus god to
Thomas also. But I’ve never heard anyone say that Moses was Almighty God and rightly
so.

Correct. Because everyone understands the context within which that was written.

John 8:58:
.μ.ν .μ.ν λ.γω .μ.ν , πρ.ν .Αβρα.μ γεν.σθαι .γ. ε.μι .
Truly truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.
Some translators translate .γ. ε.μι as “I am he” meaning that he is the Christ.

But they do so falsely. Jesus is here referring to the name of God, “I Am Who Am”. Jesus is the great “I Am”.

There is other evidence the “I am” means “I am the Christ”:
πολλο. γ.ρ .λε.σονται .π. τ. .ν.ματ. μου λ.γοντες .τι .γ. ε.μι
for many will come in my name saying: I am… (Lk. 21:8)

Others have come claiming to be God and the Saviour. Jesus’ prophecy has come true many times over.

Now let’s look at the same passage in Matthew 24:5:
πολλο. γ.ρ .λε.σονται .π. τ. .ν.ματ. μου λ.γοντες , .γ. ε.μι . Χριστ.ς
for many will come in my name saying: I am the Christ…
Luke simply says many will come saying “I am” but Matthew says that they will say
“I am the Christ”. Therefore it seems clear to me that “I am” means “I am he” or “I am
the Christ”. Having said that, I would interpret the verse as saying: "Even before
Abraham came into being, I am he or I am Christ (being the pre-incarnate Divine Logos
{word, plan, decree of God} as described in John 1).

Well, you seem to be arguing in my favor. That is exactly what we believe. Jesus has here said, “I am the pre-incarnate Divine Logos.”

John 10:30:
.γ. κα. . πατ.ρ .ν .σμεν .
I and the father are one.
Later in the same Gospel, Jesus uses the same language:
.να π.ντες .ν .σι
That they all may be one. (Jn. 17:21)

In fact, that is true. We, the Church, are the body of Christ. We are one. Read the Catechism:

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 795 (970 bytes ) preview document matches
5 Christ and his Church thus together make up the “whole Christ” (Christus totus). The Church is one with Christ. The saints are acutely aware of this unity: Let
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/795.htm

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

Remember that in the Bible, when Saul was persecuting the Church, Jesus didn’t say “why are you persecuting THEM?”

He said, “4 And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? (Acts 8).”

Jesus is speaking to the disciples here. I’ve never heard anyone say that Peter is
Andrew or that John is James. It means that they should be united or be one in spirit as
Paul also says:
. δ. κολλ.μενος τ. Κυρ… .ν πνε.μ. .στι .
He who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit. (1 Cor. 6:17)

But Peter and James and the entire Church make up the body of Christ.

Colossians 2:9
.τι .ν α.τ. κατοικε. π.ν τ. πλ.ρωμα τ.ς θε.τητος σωματικ.ς ,
For in him dwells all the fullness of Deity in bodily form.

But Paul also says to Christians in Ephesians 3:19:
.να πληρωθ.τε ε.ς π.ν τ. πλ.ρωμα το. Θεο. .
that you may filled up to all the fullness of God.

So Paul encourages the Ephesians (who are not gods) to be filled up with all the
fullness of God as Christ was also. Therefore being filled with the fullness of God does
not mean that we should be God Almighty himself but that we should have the Holy
Spirit dwelling within us as Christ our example did also.

Context, context, context…

As therefore you have received Jesus Christ the Lord, walk ye in him; 7 Rooted and built up in him, and confirmed in the faith, as also you have learned, abounding in him in thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ: 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally; 10 And you are filled in him, who is the head of all principality and power: (Col 2).

Does St. Paul say, “As you therefore have received the Ephesians, be rooted and built up in the Ephesians…” No! Why would one be built up in man? He says be built up in God, Jesus Christ.

16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened by his Spirit with might unto the inward man, 17 That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts; that being rooted and founded in charity, 18 You may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth: 19 To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge, that you may be filled unto all the fulness of God. (Ephesians 3).

Does St. Paul say, “that the Colossians may dwell in your hearts…?” No! Only God can dwell in your hearts.

The phrase “Son of God”:
I’m sure you’ve heard that Jesus, angels and men are all called sons of God in the bible,
so I won’t go into that. But I would like to talk about the phrase “the only begotten son”:
. ìïíïãåí.ò õ…ò (Jn. 1:18)
ãåí.ò =genes, from which we get the english words: genes, generation, genesis. All
these words imply something that had a beginning.

No, they don’t. You can’t have a beginning in eternity.

The word begotten ( ãåí.ò ) here means one that was born, one that came into being, or
generated one. All implying that there was a time when Christ was born or came into
being. And if Christ came into being then he wouldn’t be eternal Almighty God.

No. In eternity there is no time. Therefore, there was never a time when the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity did not exist.

God always existed (The Father). And because He always existed, He always knew Himself (The Son). And because He always knew Himself, He always loved Himself (The Spirit).

Mark 2:3
He is blaspheming, who can forgive sins but God alone?
The scribes and the Pharisees say this, not Jesus or any apostle. The scribes
were wrong about many things so they could have easily been wrong about this also.
But let’s see what the crowds said after he healed the man proving that he could forgive
sins:

They were filled with awe and glorified God, who had given authority to men. (Mt. 9:8)
So Christ was given authority to forgive sins as he also says:
All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth (Mt. 28:18)

Correct. When God became man, God gave men the power to forgive sins.

God Almighty is given nothing but all things belong to him due solely to the fact
that he exists. Another point proving wrong the scribes notion that only God can forgive
sins and their assumption that he cannot give his authority to forgive to another is in this
verse:

If you forgive the sins of any, they have been forgiven (Jn. 20:23)
Many protestants have trouble with this verse, but the simple meaning of all these
passages is that God gave Christ the authority to forgive sins and Christ gave the
apostles authority to forgive sins. Were the apostles God? The scribes were clearly
wrong that only God could forgive sins.

Clearly. But you are insinuating here that Jesus is not God because God gave men the authority to forgive sins. But the reason that God gave men the authority to forgive sins is because God became man.

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven,
neither the son, but the Father. ()
The simple way to take this verse is to say Jesus didn’t know something, so therefore
he can’t be Almighty God.

The simple way is not always the correct way. Simple does not mean right. It means easy to understand.

But here we speak of a great mystery. God became incarnate and became man. This is by nature a very difficult question. A mystery. This is not easy to understand.

481 Jesus Christ possesses two natures, one divine and the other human, not confused, but united in the one person of God’s Son.

We know that for a time, God the Son, made Himself lower than the angels.

Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place hath testified, saying: What is man, that thou art mindful of him: or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels: thou hast crowned him with glory and honour, and hast set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast subjected all things under his feet. For in that he hath subjected all things to him, he left nothing not subject to him. But now we see not as yet all things subject to him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour: that, through the grace of God, he might taste death for all. 10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, who had brought many children into glory, to perfect the author of their salvation, by his passion.

And yet Jesus Christ never left eternity, because God can’t be divided. So, God the Second Person of the Holy Trinity knew but He withheld that knowledge from Himself in the flesh.

*202 Jesus himself affirms that God is “the one Lord” whom you must love “with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength”. At the same time Jesus gives us to understand that he himself is “the Lord”. To confess that Jesus is Lord is distinctive of Christian faith. This is not contrary to belief in the One God. Nor does believing in the Holy Spirit as “Lord and giver of life” introduce any division into the One God:

We firmly believe and confess without reservation that there is only one true God, eternal infinite (immensus) and unchangeable, incomprehensible, almighty and ineffable, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple.*

And if you are Catholic, which you don’t seem to be, this what you must believe.

Revelation 1:1 confirms this also:
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him to show unto his servants…
If God gave a revelation to Jesus then there must have been a time when he did not
know it.

Again, this is a mystery. God is not divided, but there is a dual nature in Jesus Christ. God the Man came with an agenda given Him by God the Father. He Himself said so.

Miracles
Many will point to Christ’s miracles as to proof that he was God. However, this is an
extremely weak argument because miracles such as healing the sick, raising the dead,
control over weather/nature, multiplication of food… were all performed by Old
testament prophets like Moses and Elijah.

No, they weren’t. God performed those miracles through them. It is clear, they prayed for those miracles to happen. Whereas Jesus performed all the miracles of His own power.

Besides Christ himself says to his apostles:
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me, the works I do shall he do also; and
greater works than these shall he do… (Jn.14:12)

That seems to argue in my favor. This is an example of God giving man His power. God working through men.

Other problems with the Trinity:

God cannot die so therefore Jesus wasn’t God Almighty because he died. There are
trinitarian explanations to these problems, but I think they are overly complex.

That is why so many leave the Catholic Church and are attracted to simple religions which can be understood with the unaided human mind. They would rather believe simple human lies than the Divine truth.

Many, many truths are complex and hard to understand. Trigonometry, Chemistry, Biology, etc. etc. We don’t even know ourselves. Our human bodies are complex and hard to understand. Yet we don’t stop struggling with those complexities.

But the fact is that God did die and thus proved that He is the Master of Death. God is not afraid of death, He created it and permitted Satan to become its master. But Satan thought he usurped God’s power and killed God in the Crucifixion until God proved Him wrong in the Resurrection.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

God cannot be tempted by evil (Ja. 1:13) Jesus was tempted by the devil so he can’t be
Almighty God.

There is tempted and there is tempted. You can tempt me with coconut cream pie but I won’t be tempted because I hate coconut. Read Jesus encounters with Satan and see if Jesus was tempted. Satan may have tempted Him, but Jesus was far from being tempted.

And even if Christ had succumbed to the devil’s temptations can God
sin? I’ve heard that it is impossible for God to sin because sin is the transgression of the
law/will of God. God, therefore, cannot sin because the moment that he does “sin” it is
no longer sin because God himself did it according to his own will. And if Christ is God,
and cannot sin, than Christ, our example, has not been tempted in all things like us
because there was never a possibility that he could sin at all.

That is very true.

**Hebrews 4

15 For we have not a high priest, who can not have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.**

Eternal God also can’t suffer. But Jesus Christ suffered. So, God the Man, Jesus Christ, suffered in His human nature and in His human nature experienced the temptations but was not tempted because His Divine nature could never succumb.

Another problem is the complete silence in the old testament (I would add the New
Testament also) regarding the trinity.

Not so, the Holy Trinity is foreshadowed in the Old Testament. The Spirit of God is frequently mentioned and the Angel of the Lord is frequently mentioned and God is Holy, Holy, Holy.

If God ,who says that he is one in the the old
testament, but later reveals that he is really one God consisting of three distinct
persons, then God could seemingly reveal more hidden persons from his God-head in
the future.

No. God has said that He has revealed His fullness in Jesus Christ. There is no more to reveal.

In addition, most christians say that God is infinite. If God is infinite how can he be
limited to three persons?

God is not limited. He is eternal. God is Yahweh, He who is.

I think that it is easier to simply believe that our infinite
Almighty God is one, meaning that he is wholly unique and undivided in his existence.

You can go on believing all the simple stuff you want. I would rather believe the truth no matter how complex it seems. The Catholic Church teaches the Truth which Jesus revealed no matter how complex it is.

Conclusion
I realize that there are explanations for all of these philosophical problems, and I would
read any reply you may have to them. My goal is not to start an argument over this with
anyone because I realize that there are fanatical people on both sides of this issue who
would condemn to hellfire (or capital punishment) anyone who does not agree with them
on this. My goal of this article is to show that I have biblical reasons for believing what I
have come to believe now. If I am wrong, I hope that God would open my eyes to my
error and that I would submit to his will.

I pray the same thing for me and you. But I am certain that I have found the true religion. Why? Because I, like Jesus Christ, don’t bring my own words, but the Word of God which is passed down by the Catholic Church for 2000 years. These truths have stood the test of time.

Your theories have come and gone and come back again. They are fads. Blown by every wind of change.

I hope this article was fairly straight forward and easy to understand. I apologize for all
the greek quotes in it, but I thought that if you could see the words in greek itself you
could understand better where I am coming from. If made any mistakes in my scripture
quotes please let me know or if you want to discuss passages that I didn’t mention I
would be happy to. I want to add that I don’t understand everything in the scriptures or
everything concerning Christ in the scriptures. There are enough mysteries in the
scriptures as it is and to add another mystery (namely the trinity) just makes things more
confusing when the texts can be understood in a more simple way.
Thank you for being a good friend Jay. I hope to see you soon. God bless you.
Karl

God bless you as well.

Sincerely,

---

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

De Maria