Another EV dichotomy problem.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

With a little research one can find these gems.

I thought Mormons didn't approve of "quote mining."

Let's put all of your quotations in some context.

1. Everyone agrees that the formal, explicit, systematized doctrine of the Trinity was a postbiblical development. Yawn. All formal, explicit, systematized doctrines on all issues are postbiblical developments, because the Bible is not a formal systematic theology textbook.

2. The much-discussed distinction between the "economic" Trinity and the "ontological" Trinity is of no use to the LDS position, since your doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is itself an ontological doctrine. That is, LDS doctrine teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are ontologically three separate divine Personages (i.e., three Gods). The issue that divides us here is not economic v. ontological understandings of the three persons, but which ontological understanding we should accept.

3. Lohse is correct in pointing out that all attempts to trace the origins of the formal doctrine of the Trinity to non-Christian sources have failed. The doctrine originated from Christians reflecting on the biblical revelation, period. Yes, they did so in Greek and Latin words; should they have used Reformed Egyptian words? The fact is that no one can escape the necessity of articulating their beliefs in their own language and in ways that connect with their culture's conceptual framework.

4. The assertions of Unitarians and skeptics, who flatly reject any notion of the divinity of Jesus Christ (e.g., Abbott, Norton, Wells), are of no relevance to the historical facts. Their agenda drove their conclusions, as you would no doubt agree with regard to their rejection of the divine status and preexistence of Christ.

5. In at least one case that I already knew about, your quotation is out of context. Hopkins actually wrote, "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently never known; at any rate, they say nothing about it." Furthermore, in the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted, Hopkins wrote, "The beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity appears already in John (c. 100)." Oops. This is what you get when you engage in quote mining by copying and pasting from the Internet without looking up the quotations for yourself in context.

[Vance]

1. Everyone agrees that the formal, explicit, systematized doctrine of the Trinity was a postbiblical development. Yawn. All formal, explicit, systematized doctrines on all issues are postbiblical developments, because the Bible is not a formal systematic theology textbook.

There goes "sola scriptura" under the bus again.

These "postbiblical developments" were uninspired developments of mingling the philosophies of men with a little bit of scripture and calling it doctrine.

Furthermore, in the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted, Hopkins wrote, "The beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity appears already in John (c. 100)." Oops. This is what you get when you engage in quote mining by copying and pasting from the Internet without looking up the quotations for yourself in context.

That quote supports my position. Claiming that "the beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity appears already in John" is an explicit admission that the doctrine isn't in the Bible. John 1:1 makes it clear that "THE GOD" is separate being from "THE WORD".

No where does the Bible support three persons being one being or one substance.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

There goes "sola scriptura" under the bus again.

No, there you go again. Sola scriptura does not preclude systematic theological reflection and formulation. To say or suggest otherwise is to display ignorance of the subject.

You wrote:

That quote supports my position. Claiming that "the beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity appears already in John" is an explicit admission that the doctrine isn't in the Bible. John 1:1 makes it clear that "THE GOD" is separate being from "THE WORD".

John 1:1 also makes it clear that the WORD was himself GOD.

You wrote:

No where does the Bible support three persons being one being or one substance.

Nowhere does the Bible support the Father and the Holy Spirit, for example, being two substances. Your argument ignores the biblical evidence that there is only one God in the sense of one Creator and Universal Sovereign Ruler, and that this one God is one being.

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

No, there you go again. Sola scriptura does not preclude systematic theological reflection and formulation. To say or suggest otherwise is to display ignorance of the subject.

Any "systematic theological reflection" that is not whole and completely grounded in the Bible is a violation of "sola scriptura". The doctrine of the trinity is a violation of "sola scriptura". Even "sola scriptura" is a violation of "sola scriptura" as it is not Bible based.

Nowhere does the Bible support the Father and the Holy Spirit, for example, being two substances.

Nor can it be found that they are one substance. Therefore, that portion of the doctrine is unbiblical.

Your argument ignores the biblical evidence that there is only one God in the sense of one Creator and Universal Sovereign Ruler, . . .

True.

. . . and that this one God is one being.

False. There is not a single verse that supports this assumption. And yet there are NUMEROUS verses that clearly and plainly say otherwise.

[Vance]

John 1:1 also makes it clear that the WORD was himself a GOD.

There, fixed it for you.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

There you go again.

There, fixed it for you.

[Vance]

Vance,

There you go again.

Well, Rob, you DO know that Greek doesn't have an indefinite article.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Perhaps you are not aware of this fact, but I wrote a book over 20 years ago in which the first half of the book examined this question in excruciating detail. Obviously, you haven't read that book. I'm guessing you also have not read the famous periodical articles on John 1:1 by E. C. Colwell and Philip Harner, or Daniel Wallace's extensive treatment of the question in his academic textbook Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, or anything else of substance on the issue. I suggest you do some serious homework before spouting off on this subject.

Well, Rob, you DO know that Greek doesn't have an indefinite article.

[Vance]

Vance,

Perhaps you are not aware of this fact, but I wrote a book over 20 years ago in which the first half of the book examined this question in excruciating detail. Obviously, you haven't read that book. I'm guessing you also have not read the famous periodical articles on John 1:1 by E. C. Colwell and Philip Harner, or Daniel Wallace's extensive treatment of the question in his academic textbook Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, or anything else of substance on the issue. I suggest you do some serious homework before spouting off on this subject.

Ah, the old "if you knew what I know, you would agree with me" mime.

I call that being non-responsive.

This issue has been discussed several times here. Perhaps it is you that needs to do some reading.

Edited to add,

Following is a short list of translations whose translators have understood the issues inherent in correctly translating John 1:1:

The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text

1808, LONDON

Rendering: "...and the word was a god"

The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History, According to the Four Evangelists

1829, BALTIMORE (by John S. Thompson)

Rendering: "...and the Logos was a god"

The Emphatic Diaglott

1864, NEW YORK, LONDON (by Benjamin Wilson)

Rendering: "...and a god was the Word"

The Bible - An American Translation

1935, CHICAGO (by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed)

Rendering: "...and the Word was divine"

New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures

1950, BROOKLYN (by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.)

Rendering: "...and the Word was a god"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1975, GOTTINGEN (GERMANY) (by Sigfried Schulz)

"...und ein Gott (oder, Gott von Art) war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1978, BERLIN (GERMANY)(by Johannes Schneider)

"...und goettlichen Wesens war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and god-like sort was the Word"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1979, WURZBURG (GERMANY) (by Johannes Schneider)

"...und ein Gott war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and a god was the Word"

[Hestia]

If you are going to dispute a point don't just refer to something written 20 years ago but spell it out. Otherwise don't bring up the issue.

[ELF1024]

**Bump**

[Hick Preacher]

John 1:1, the Greek makes it clear that the God (the Father) is separate from the Word (the Son).

En archE en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ho theos kai theos en ho logos

In beginning was the word and the word was toward the god and god was the word.

I am wondering if you understand the conjunction "and" or what it means.

Eph. 1:2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thes. 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

How many more do I need?

Why should one PRESUME that these verse mean anything OTHER THAN what they are clearly and plainly saying?

Oh please stop, your killing me.

It is possible to falsely interpret LDS unique scripture.

I do not see anything in John 1:1, Eph. 1:2, 1 Thes. 1:1 that contradicts trinitarian thought.

[Hick Preacher]

So I wonder how Isaiah missed the fact that there are 2 YHWHs spoken of in the OT.

Gen 19

4 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Psalms 110

1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine eenemies thy footstool.

I don't know how that can be because even Isaiah makes mention of 2 JHVHs.

Isaiah 44:6 (2 Jehovahs)

6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God

Isaiah 48:16 (3 Lords Spoke of)

16

[ELF1024]

I do not see anything in John 1:1, Eph. 1:2, 1 Thes. 1:1 that contradicts trinitarian thought.

How do you define Trinitarian thought? Are you speaking of the classical Nicean Trinity, or another from of Trinitarian thought?

Some Protestant Christians, particularly some members of the restoration movement, are ambivalent about the doctrine of the Trinity. While not specifically rejecting Trinitarianism or presenting an alternative doctrine of the Godhead and God's relationship with humanity, they are neither dogmatic about the Trinity nor hold it as a test of true Christian faith. Some, like the Society of Friends (Quakers) and Christian Unitarians, may reject all doctrinal or creedal tests of true faith, though not necessarily reject Trinitarian language. Others with a distinctive understanding of "Scripture alone", like some members of the restorationist Churches of Christ, say that since the doctrine of the Trinity is not clearly articulated in the Bible, it cannot be required for salvation.

[Vance]

I do not see anything in John 1:1, Eph. 1:2, 1 Thes. 1:1 that contradicts trinitarian thought.

Of course not. The "special pleading" definition of person helps hide the contradictions.

In the real world, three persons = three separate and distinct beings. Only the special definition of person, (which is actually the definition of personality), can you hide the contradictions.

Let's go back in time and look at the definition of person.

From the 1828 Websters,

PERSON, n. per'sn. [L. persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the state.]

1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child.

A person is a thinking intelligent being.

2. A man, woman or child, considered as opposed to things, or distinct from them.

A zeal for persons is far more easy to be perverted, than a zeal for things.

3. A human being, considered with respect to the living body or corporeal existence only. The form of her person is elegant.

You'll find her person difficult to gain.

The rebels maintained the fight for a small time, and for their persons showed no want of courage.

4. A human being, indefinitely; one; a man. Let a person's attainments be never so great, he should remember he is frail and imperfect.

5. A human being represented in dialogue, fiction, or on the state; character. A player appears in the person of king Lear.

These tables, Cicero pronounced under the person of Crassus, were of more use and authority than all the books of the philosophers.

6. Character of office.

How different is the same man from himself, as he sustains the person of a magistrate and that of a friend.

7. In grammar, the nominative to a verb; the agent that performs or the patient that suffers any thing affirmed by a verb; as, I write; he is smitten; she is beloved; the rain descends in torrents. I, thou or you, he, she or it, are called the first, second and third persons. Hence we apply the word person to the termination or modified form of the verb used in connection with the persons; as the first or the third person of the verb; the verb is in the second person.

8. In law, an artificial person, is a corporation or body politic.

In person, by one's self; with bodily presence; not be representative.

The king in person visits all around.

Three persons = three separate and distinct beings.

Who is deluding whom?

[Hick Preacher]

Of course not. The "special pleading" definition of person helps hide the contradictions.

In the real world, three persons = three separate and distinct beings. Only the special definition of person, (which is actually the definition of personality), can you hide the contradictions.

Let's go back in time and look at the definition of person.

From the 1828 Websters,

Three persons = three separate and distinct beings.

Who is deluding whom?

You are describing human beings in this Earthly tier or sphere of existence.

In the tiers of existence with God in the Highest tier or sphere He is transcendent. This is evident in the hierarchy of the beings of the tiers of early Israel. Those of the highest tier were transcendent. The El later assigned the name of Jehovah(YHWH), dwelt on the highest sphere and had a hypostasis being "The Angel of the Lord" who visited the lower tiers who was also YHWH. This hypostasis being was Jehovah(YHWH) yet was not directly the same as Jehovah on high. This situation and phenomena later became the basis of the idea of a transcendent Highest God-- and lead to the idea of Jesus Christ being the hypostasis being sent by the Father the Highest sphere of Heaven-( who was the same substance or one with the Father) and ultimately the Trinity.

This idea of the hypostasis being "Angel of the Lord" who was YHWH a manifestation of the Highest God visiting the Earthly realms, is fairly well communicated in a online PowerPoint presented by Mike Heiser---- Here Two Powers- Two Jehovahs

[ELF1024]

You are describing human beings in this tier or sphere of existence.

In the tiers of existence with God in the Highest tier or sphere He is transcendent. This is evident in the hierarchy of the beings if the tiers of early Israel. Those of the highest tier were transcendent. The El later assigned the name of Jehovah(YHWH), dwelt on the highest sphere and had a hypostasis being "The Angel of the Lord" who visited the lower tiers who was also YHWH. This hypostasis being was Jehovah(YHWH) yet was not directly the same as Jehovah on high. This situation and phenomena later became the basis of the idea of a transcendent Highest God-- and lead to the idea of the Trinity.

This idea is fairly well communicated in a online PowerPoint presented by Mike Heiser---- Here Two Powers- Two Jehovahs

Oh! See you just nailed it... The Bible would be so much better had Moses had Powerpoint. Rotten Microsoft! I blame Bill Gates.

[Hick Preacher]

Oh! See you just nailed it... The Bible would be so much better had Moses had Powerpoint. Rotten Microsoft! I blame Bill Gates.

Mike Heister did the interactive version of PowerPoint by importing it into Articulate. ( Which costs like a thousand dollars a copy). Nevertheless, in the Parting of the Red Sea, Moses made a powerful-point to Pharaoh, that could not have been achieved even with PowerPoint.

[Zakuska]

You are describing human beings in this Earthly tier or sphere of existence.

In the tiers of existence with God in the Highest tier or sphere He is transcendent. This is evident in the hierarchy of the beings of the tiers of early Israel. Those of the highest tier were transcendent. The El later assigned the name of Jehovah(YHWH), dwelt on the highest sphere and had a hypostasis being "The Angel of the Lord" who visited the lower tiers who was also YHWH. This hypostasis being was Jehovah(YHWH) yet was not directly the same as Jehovah on high. This situation and phenomena later became the basis of the idea of a transcendent Highest God-- and lead to the idea of Jesus Christ being the hypostasis being sent by the Father the Highest sphere of Heaven-( who was the same substance or one with the Father) and ultimately the Trinity.

This idea of the hypostasis being "Angel of the Lord" who was YHWH a manifestation of the Highest God visiting the Earthly realms, is fairly well communicated in a online PowerPoint presented by Mike Heiser---- Here Two Powers- Two Jehovahs

Excellent powerpoint!

RE: Gen 19:24 - I've been saying that for over a year now and all the Hyper-Monotheists over on CARM just look at me and say Im not interpreting Genesis correctly or Im riping the verse from context.

So I look up Hypostasis - "Three persons in one being" and found something very intresting.

Hypostasis (philosophy)

In Christian usage, the Greek word hypostasis (?????????) means the 'existence' of some thing. In the ecumenical councils the terminology was clarified and standardized, so that the formula "Three Hypostases in one Ousia" came to be accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity, that The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are three distinct 'hypostases' in one God. The word is also used to refer to the divinity of Christ, which is another facet of Christ along with his humanity (see also Hypostatic union).

The word 'hypostasis' has been met with controversy and confusion over the years, especially in the conversations between those who consider it to be a violation of the principle of Monotheism and those who do not.

http://en.wikipedia....sis_(philosophy)

Then I clicked on the word "Ousia" (ie being) (Three persons in one being) And look what I found...

Ousia (?????) is the Ancient Greek noun formed on the feminine present participle of ????? (to be); it is analogous to the English participle being, and the modern philosophy adjectival ontic. Ousia is often translated (sometimes incorrectly) to Latin as substantia and essentia, and to English as substance and essence; and (loosely) also as (contextually) the Latin word accident

[Vance]

I do not see anything in John 1:1, Eph. 1:2, 1 Thes. 1:1 that contradicts trinitarian thought.

And then there is the conjunction "and".

Do you know what it means?

Again, lets go back in time. From the 1828 Websters.

AND, conj.

And is a conjunction, connective or conjoining word. It signifies that a word or part of a sentence is to be added to what precedes. Thus, give me an apple and an orange; that is, give me an apple, add or give in addition to that, an orange. John and Peter and James rode to New York, that is, John rode to New York; add or further, Peter rode to New York; add James rode to New York.

And if that isn't clear enough. We have this, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/and

[Hick Preacher]

Excellent powerpoint!

RE: Gen 19:24 - I've been saying that for over a year now and all the Hyper-Monotheists over on CARM just look at me and say Im not interpreting Genesis correctly or Im riping the verse from context.

So I look up Hypostasis - "Three persons in one being" and found something very intresting.

http://en.wikipedia....sis_(philosophy)

Then I clicked on the word "Ousia" (ie being) (Three persons in one being) And look what I found...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousia

It seems that Christians are basing their doctrines of the Trinity on a mistranlations!

It may be true that Fifth Century Christians simply used very loosely the term

homoousios. This maybe because the audience in those days needed remediation through a Greek rendering of concepts parallel gospel truths.

The Apostle Paul mentions that he was doing this in the New Testament era=

Romans 6:19-22 (New International Version,

[Hick Preacher]

And then there is the conjunction "and".

Do you know what it means?

Again, lets go back in time. From the 1828 Websters.

And if that isn't clear enough. We have this, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/and

AND consider "and" via Grandville Sharp's rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granville_Sharp#Classical_grammarian

[Zakuska]

What I am referring to, and including Heister's presention ( about the Two Jehovahs) is about the idea of the Highest God having the attribute of transcendence. This transcendent nature as evidenced by hypostatis (Angel of the Lord), appearing as a tangible person who was actually the Highest God-being manifest in a lower sphere of existence (on the Earth)as a distinct person. This is an idea very much like the ideas found in the fifth century Trinity formulas.

I liked his Judges rendition where YHWH talks to the Angel of YHWH. Both being manifest as People at the same time and place.

[Rob Bowman]

Hestia,

You wrote:

If you are going to dispute a point don't just refer to something written 20 years ago but spell it out. Otherwise don't bring up the issue.

I didn't bring up the issue.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Two points:

1. Trinitarians agree that God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are two different persons.

2. The conjunction "and" does not always separate two persons or individuals; whether this is the case must be determined from the whole statement. For example, "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" refers to one person, not two; "our God and Father" refers to one person, not two. In the case of "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ," orthodox Christians agree that two persons are meant. If you want to have fun attacking the idea that such texts refer to one person, go after the Oneness Pentecostals, not us.

John 1:1, the Greek makes it clear that the God (the Father) is separate from the Word (the Son).

En archE en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ho theos kai theos en ho logos

In beginning was the word and the word was toward the god and god was the word.

I am wondering if you understand the conjunction "and" or what it means.

Eph. 1:2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thes. 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

How many more do I need?

Why should one PRESUME that these verse mean anything OTHER THAN what they are clearly and plainly saying?

Oh please stop, your killing me.

It is possible to falsely interpret LDS unique scripture.