Trinity Definition and Justification

[zerinus]

Hi zerinus--

I would agree that context is crucial if we hope to interpret correctly. I'm left wondering, then, why you seemingly haven't taken John 20.19 (two verses after your proof text) into account.

I have no doubt that you believe you've found circumstantial and contextual indicators supportive of your interpretation. The text itself, however, lets us know that your suggestion (Jesus "[continued] His ministry to His disciples at a later date") is incorrectâ??and, in fact, impossible, if we take the text at face value.

John 20.1 tells us that Mary "came to the tomb early, while it was still dark." Let's assume that "while it was still dark" indicates that the time was around 5:00 a.m. or so.

You suggest that John 20.17 indicates that Jesus ascended to the Father shortly after his encounter with Mary (just after daybreak, perhaps?) and returned at a later date to continue his ministry to His disciples.

John 20.19, however, tells us that Jesus appeared to the disciples "on the evening of that day" (τή ἡμέρα ἐκείνῃ, tē hēmera ekeinē). "Evening" here is Gr. οψιας (opsias), indicating a time after 3:00 p.m. Thus, Jesus appeared to the disciples approximately 10 to, say, 15 hours after his appearance to Mary.

Jesus can't have "[continued] His ministry to His disciples at a later date" if he continued his ministry to his disciples only hours after his appearance to Mary in the early morning--unless, by "a later date" you mean "several hours later on the same day." I can't imagine that that's what you intended, though.

If you take John 20.19 into account, I'd imagine that you'd need to change your interpretation to something like: "[Jesus continued] his Ministry to His disciples [later that day]."

Jesus after His resurrection was no longer mortal, and was not bound by terrestrial limitations. He could appear and disappear in locations at an instance. For example, when He appeared to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, He was able to hide His identity from them so that at first they did not recognize Him. Then, when they were having dinner with Him and He enabled them to recognize Him, He vanished out of their sight. Again, when He appeared to His disciples, it was in an upper room with the all the doors locked. He appeared to them from nowhere, so that they thought they had seen a ghost! Fifteen minutes, or ten minutes, or half an hour, or whatever, would have been long enough for Him to ascend to His Father and return again to finish His ministry on earth to His disciples.

You still havenâ??t addressed the question of what He was doing during the intervening periods when He was not with His disciples, during the forty days that the scriptures say He ministered to them? Was He wandering aimlessly in the desert debating what to do next?

I think it has been shown that your interpretation supra cannot stand in light of the text.

I was just attempting to have a dialog, zerinus. I take it that you're not interested in that.

Some people like to project their own state of mind on others. It appears that you are the one who â??when others disagree with you they are definitionally incorrectâ?. Another way of saying that is that you just donâ??t like to be proved wrong; and you must, by hook or crook, establish the opposite.

zerinus

[cksalmon]

Jesus after His resurrection was no longer mortal, and was not bound by terrestrial limitations. He could appear and disappear in locations at an instance. For example, when He appeared to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, He was able to hide His identity from them so that at first they did not recognize Him. Then, when they were having dinner with Him and He enabled them to recognize Him, He vanished out of their sight. Again, when He appeared to His disciples, it was in an upper room with the all the doors locked. He appeared to them from nowhere, so that they thought they had seen a ghost! Fifteen minutes, or ten minutes, or half an hour, or whatever, would have been long enough for Him to ascend to His Father and return again to finish His ministry on earth to His disciples.

You still haven't addressed the question of what He was doing during the intervening periods when He was not with His disciples, during the forty days that the scriptures say He ministered to them? Was He wandering aimlessly in the desert debating what to do next?

Some people like to project their own state of mind on others. It appears that you are the one who "when others disagree with you they are definitionally incorrect". Another way of saying that is that you just don't like to be proved wrong; and you must, by hook or crook, establish the opposite.

zerinus

Hi zerinus--

You strike me as someone with great zeal, which is commendable; but your zeal appears to be without knowledge or temperance. If you'd care to address the points I made in my response above, I'll likely respond. I do recognize that you've implicitly changed your position to bring it in line with my observations on the text of John 20.19, which is, again, commendable.

Otherwise--and I'll own this statement as being directed personally toward you, though I say it without any malice or ill-will: you are one of the most unpleasant posters I've encountered on this board. Please note that I don't mean that as a personal attack, and the observation is not intended to discredit your interpretation of John 20.17. The two issues are completely separate in my mind. I fully admit that your position might indeed be correct (as I've already noted). But, your online persona, to my mind, works against you.

It might behoove both of us to take note of other LDS posters here (not all) and other EV posters (not all) and Catholic posters (not all) who are willing and able to make their points, disagree, challenge one another, etc. without being so overtly antagonistic and rude.

Again (enter olive branch from stage left), if you'd like to respond to the remarks I've made above in response to yours, time permitting, I'd be amenable.

Best.

cks

[rhinomelon]

The earliest Christians did primarily draw upon Greek philosophers in their writings as an apologetic exercise in order to make Christian doctrine more acceptable or understandable to the pagans. But as time passed, they got carried away with that idea, and began to make use of those writings more as a primary source to develop their thinking on Christian doctrine.

If this is the case, then why do you quote the later, "apostate" church fathers in support of unique LDS doctrines? For instance, Clement of Alexandria is perhaps the most philosophically oriented church father of the first 400 years of Christianity, with the possible exception of his student, Origen (whom LDS apologists also like to cite a great deal).

If you had to look for deification before Irenaeus, you'd have to look pretty closely. And even in Irenaeus, the concept of deification at work is much different than the LDS one. Anyway, I will grant that your argument regarding the revealing of deification is a valid one, but I maintain that it is incomplete, in light of volumes of evidence.

I think I have my head wrapped around the theological construct of the Trinity. I appreciate its ability to conserve monotheism and see that as its main appeal (personally). I understand (and even have some agreement with) the majority of what you wrote, so I will ask for clarification on the rest.

Wow, see, this is the number one reason I hang around the boards here. If you gain a deeper understanding of the Trinity, I am happy and content! Thank you for putting forth the effort to understand a concept outside your normal theological channels! I greatly appreciate it.

And since the divine substance is spirit and immaterial and omnipresent, there is no separation of Christ from the Father? This makes some sense, but what about the intercessory prayer where Christ asks God why He has forsaken him? That sounds like there was a separation, even if momentary.

Are you referring to Jesus' words on the cross? "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" ? Actually, there are a couple different approaches to this passage, and the second one I'll put here has a lot going for it, in my opinion. First of all, Jesus Christ, God and man, was on the cross taking upon himself all the sin of the world--as Paul said, "He who had no sin became sin for us." Jesus' humanity was experiencing the full weight of God's judgment and wrath over our sin, taking it all on himself. Jesus' divinity was taking it on as well, meaning that there was possibly a break in the relationship between Father and Son, though not in terms of nature.

I don't really subscribe too much to that interpretation. Here's a quick link that explains the other one, which I find to make more sense: http://www.brentcunningham.org/?p=53

Basically, it notes that Jesus' words were the first of Psalm 22, known by many as the "crucifixion" psalm. It also ends on a victorious note, a triumph for God. When Jews wanted to call to mind a psalm, they would often quote only the first line. Seen in this light, Jesus' words become, not a cry of separation and desolation, but a shout of triumph, as his primary task as the incarnate Son is finally completed. This fits in well with scripture, I think. The other interpretation suffers simply because we never see any indication of an actual separation between the Father and the Son (and the Spirit, for that matter).

I can grasp that. But if Christ had full divine nature and full human nature as you stated earlier, and he was capable of acting upon both, that would require some balancing act of not only will but also consciousness. I will expound on the problem I see here if it doesn't make sense.

Quite true, good observation! The key to this balancing act is found in Philippians 2, in which the Son, not holding onto his equality with God, humbled himself (the Greek here actually means "emptying", a "kenosis") and took on the form of a servant. Basically, the Son, emptied himself of certain elements of his divinity that were obviously incompatible with life as a human being. But we still see both natures manifesting themselves in Jesus' earthly ministry. On the human side, Jesus hungered, thirsted, got tired, could die, could be tempted, etc. On the divine side, Jesus could forgive sins, read minds and know people's hearts, raise people from the dead, and make statements that would get a normal man stoned for blasphemy. What we see is both natures at work in Christ in different ways.

In the early church fathers, they looked through the gospels and figured out which statements and actions applied to Christ in his divinity, and which applied to him in his humanity. This exercise helped them figure out the hypostatic union (a term you used correctly indeed! ), and how Christ could logically be fully God and fully man simultaneously.

I don't quite grasp how the Trinity remained unchanging through this. I understand that Christ's human nature is not essential to His divinity, but it seems that the altogether 'other' nature of the Trinity changed to something altogether 'more other' with Christ retaining his physical body and human nature.

It's a great question. There's a diagram that I've seen that's helpful, but I can't find it online, believe it or not. Almost like a Venn diagram, with three circles representing the three persons of the Trinity all interlocked, and a fourth, smaller circle that touches the circle of the Son, but does not cross it. This fourth circle is the human nature, and while it touches the divine nature of the Son, it does not intermingle or "cross-pollinate" (never used THAT word in theological discussion!).

Because the two natures are really inhabiting different "spheres", namely the spiritual and the material, the divine and the human, they can coexist without being fundamentally altered by the other. To take an odd analogy from science, physicists tell us that we are being bombarded by tiny particles called neutrinos all the time. But they are so small, they can pass through everything without ever touching it, even at the atomic level. Neutrinos and my matter are coexisting at every moment, but we never influence or impact each other's nature. Yeah, odd analogy that fails miserably on many other levels, but I hope you see my point.

I'm just about done with my application, so I'll have some more free time coming up to research your good questions more thoroughly. I'm just shooting from the hip here.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

The earliest Christians did primarily draw upon Greek philosophers in their writings as an apologetic exercise in order to make Christian doctrine more acceptable or understandable to the pagans. But as time passed, they got carried away with that idea, and began to make use of those writings more as a primary source to develop their thinking on Christian doctrine.

Just out of curiosity, zerinus, if this is the apostasy model you adopt, why are the quotes you provide from the early church fathers all from the later centuries, in which the apostasy was in full swing and the church fathers were, in your opinion, already corrupted by excessive reliance on Greek philosophy?

Take care

[JDave]

Wow, see, this is the number one reason I hang around the boards here. If you gain a deeper understanding of the Trinity, I am happy and content! Thank you for putting forth the effort to understand a concept outside your normal theological channels! I greatly appreciate it.

The more I have thought about it, the more it strikes me how similar it is to LDS doctrine on the Godhead. The differences are comparatively small, albeit theologically irreconcilable. Since the Trinity is not modalist, but consists of three persons, the main differences (in nature, not origin nor relation to mankind) are

• One substance versus three separate beings
  
• Corporeal nature of God the Father
  

And if you take into account that LDS doctrine teaches that the spirit of God permeates all of space, the first point is lessened even more. Surely there are plenty more distinctions, but they seem to be ancillary to the two I mentioned. Focusing on differences is NOT a tangent I want to go down, merely to see if my concept of the Trinity correctly delineates the major differences.

Are you referring to Jesus' words on the cross? "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" ?

...

Basically, it notes that Jesus' words were the first of Psalm 22, known by many as the "crucifixion" psalm. It also ends on a victorious note, a triumph for God.

Yes, that's what I was trying to refer too. The second explanation seems to make more sense to me (from a Trinitarian point of view ) as well, since the first seems to stretching a bit to say there was no separation. This need of avoiding any separation is what causes me the most cognitive dissonance. I think that is due to my LDS upbringing and the notion of God being composed of matter (both spirit and flesh). Even trying to set that aside, I see that aspect of the Trinity as one of the main items that is a little more 'read into' the scriptures in an attempt to resolve otherwise contradictory passages.

Quite true, good observation! The key to this balancing act is found in Philippians 2, in which the Son, not holding onto his equality with God, humbled himself (the Greek here actually means "emptying", a "kenosis") and took on the form of a servant.

I wanted to avoid this in my previous post, but to be clear, this seems to make Christ out to be suffering from schizophrenia. Technically this is simply "the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements", so perhaps that fits well with the hypostatic union. But is the nature one of the divine Christ allowing the human side of himself to be tempted, etc., or is it one of the divine Christ and human Christ both simultaneously having thoughts and desires?

Because the two natures are really inhabiting different "spheres", namely the spiritual and the material, the divine and the human, they can coexist without being fundamentally altered by the other.

I think I understand the argument, but it still doesn't internally jive with me. The closest I get is that we both believe that God is unchanging. However, we both accept that God came down to earth in the form of the man Jesus. This was necessarily a change. So perhaps we both seem to accept that when God says he is unchanging we recognize that He is referring to some aspects of Himself and not everything. If the Trinitarian view is that God really did change in this aspect, but it does not contradict God's statement that He is unchanging -- then I get it. However if the Trinitarian view is that God never did actually change because the circles don't touch -- then it doesn't jive.

Thanks, Rhino!

[zerinus]

If this is the case, then why do you quote the later, "apostate" church fathers in support of unique LDS doctrines? For instance, Clement of Alexandria is perhaps the most philosophically oriented church father of the first 400 years of Christianity, with the possible exception of his student, Origen (whom LDS apologists also like to cite a great deal).

If you had to look for deification before Irenaeus, you'd have to look pretty closely. And even in Irenaeus, the concept of deification at work is much different than the LDS one.

I did not say that they were wrong just because they were philosophically oriented; neither was I referring to the Apologists of the third, fourth, or fifth centuries; neither did I say that their doctrine of deification became philosophized and went wrong. The theological â??driftâ? that I was referring to happened during the Middle Ages. If you read the theological writings of that period, you will find that they read like Aristotelian metaphysics.

Anyway, I will grant that your argument regarding the revealing of deification is a valid one, but I maintain that it is incomplete, in light of volumes of evidence.

Thank you for agreeing with me on something! What is incomplete?

zerinus

[rhinomelon]

I did not say that they were wrong just because they were philosophically oriented; neither was I referring to the Apologists of the third, fourth, or fifth centuries; neither did I say that their doctrine of deification became philosophized and went wrong. The theological â??driftâ? that I was referring to happened during the Middle Ages. If you read the theological writings of that period, you will find that they read like Aristotelian metaphysics.

Very interesting. The vast majority of LDS would put the detrimental effects of Greek philosophy much further back, usually into the second century or so. So would you be okay with the obvious use of philosophical concepts in the writings of the early church fathers in, say, the formulation of the Trinity in the third and fourth centuries? You obviously don't agree with their conclusion, but what do you think about their method?

Thank you for agreeing with me on something! What is incomplete?

The early church fathers most adamant on the issue of deification had no problem using pre-Christian elements and philosophical precursors in the formulation of their thinking on the matter. It wasn't simply dropped from heaven into the laps of the early church, but grew up organically from the church's ongoing interactions with inspired Scripture AND pre-Christian concepts.

Deification was largely absent from the earliest church fathers, only really being examined with the writings of Irenaeus. Was the church apostate by the time of Irenaeus, or was the doctrine of deification revealed to him by people in authority at that time, in your opinion?

Since the Trinity is not modalist, but consists of three persons, the main differences (in nature, not origin nor relation to mankind) are

One substance versus three separate beings

Corporeal nature of God the Father

I would agree with you, JDave, that these are the core differences. I would add only one: the fundamental difference in nature between God and man. There is no Lorenzo Snow couplet equivalent in mainstream Christian theology, in other words.

This need of avoiding any separation is what causes me the most cognitive dissonance. I think that is due to my LDS upbringing and the notion of God being composed of matter (both spirit and flesh). Even trying to set that aside, I see that aspect of the Trinity as one of the main items that is a little more 'read into' the scriptures in an attempt to resolve otherwise contradictory passages.

Just out of curiosity, are there any scriptures you could point to in order to show that God could possibly be divided? I can see that you'd have a difficulty with this, especially with the materialistic slant to LDS theology about God. I would kind of rephrase your statement above. I don't think it's a matter of "avoiding" any separation that Trinitarians are concerned with; rather, it's believing that separation within the Trinity is simply impossible. It's like Jesus punching out his Father in the LDS Godhead, and running off to start a rival Godhead or something--no LDS would think that's a possibility. The Godhead is the Godhead precisely because they are united in purpose, power, etc., right?

It's not that we're avoiding separation, but that we understand that separation can't happen, so we start from that point. Does that make sense?

I wanted to avoid this in my previous post, but to be clear, this seems to make Christ out to be suffering from schizophrenia. Technically this is simply "the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements", so perhaps that fits well with the hypostatic union. But is the nature one of the divine Christ allowing the human side of himself to be tempted, etc., or is it one of the divine Christ and human Christ both simultaneously having thoughts and desires?

Well, first of all, in Christology there isn't really a "human Christ" and a "divine Christ". There is only "Jesus Christ", who is both fully divine and fully human. These two natures are bound in one actual person, whose name is "Jesus Christ". So when certain things like forgiving sins or reading minds is happening, it is the divine nature making it possible, but Jesus Christ is the one doing it. Likewise, when Jesus is tempted or hungry or dying, it is human nature that makes that possible, but the same Jesus Christ is being tempted, hungering and dying. So there's no schizophrenia, as if there are two separate people taking turns puppeteering the same human body.

However, we both accept that God came down to earth in the form of the man Jesus. This was necessarily a change.

I think this is another difference between our perspectives. I don't think it was necessarily a change, at least in terms of nature. For an imperfect analogy, if I put on a suit and go to a supermarket I've never gone to, it represents a change in my behavior, a likely change in the relationship with my old supermarket, and a change in my appearance (being a t-shirt and jeans guy myself). But I am still me, I still have the same basic nature.

Now, what is going on in the incarnation is much different, much deeper than that, but I don't see how it necessitates a change in the divine nature.

However if the Trinitarian view is that God never did actually change because the circles don't touch -- then it doesn't jive.

I think this is the only way to make sense of all the biblical data. We have verses that tell us Christ was fully human in every way, and we have verses that tell us that he was fully God as well. We have verses that say God is unchanging by nature. And so on and so forth. What we end up with is a solution that is logically coherent, but virtually impossible to fully understand or visualize. And this is why I tend to avoid Christology--not my favorite theological topic!

I'll be back, I think I have some more left in me here!

Take care, everyone

[zerinus]

Very interesting. The vast majority of LDS would put the detrimental effects of Greek philosophy much further back, usually into the second century or so. So would you be okay with the obvious use of philosophical concepts in the writings of the early church fathers in, say, the formulation of the Trinity in the third and fourth centuries? You obviously don't agree with their conclusion, but what do you think about their method?

Their problem was not their â??methodâ?. Their problem was that the church was cut off from revelation because of the Apostasy. They could not resolve their theological difficulties by divine revelation because that power no longer existed in the church. So in the absence of that, it did not really matter in the end what â??methodâ? they employed to reach their conclusions. If you donâ??t take the right road, it doesnâ??t matter what road you take. Whichever road you take will be the wrong one. In the absence of revelation they followed a method with which they were culturally familiar. It doesnâ??t matter in the end what that was. Their methods did not completely lead them astray either. They were often well-intentioned; and to that extent I am sure they enjoyed some guidance from the Holy Spirit. But they didnâ??t get everything right either.

The early church fathers most adamant on the issue of deification had no problem using pre-Christian elements and philosophical precursors in the formulation of their thinking on the matter.

And I told you why I think they did it.

It wasn't simply dropped from heaven into the laps of the early church, but grew up organically from the church's ongoing interactions with inspired Scripture AND pre-Christian concepts.

See above.

Deification was largely absent from the earliest church fathers, only really being examined with the writings of Irenaeus. Was the church apostate by the time of Irenaeus, or was the doctrine of deification revealed to him by people in authority at that time, in your opinion?

Perhaps that is because the earliest Christians didnâ??t produce that much writing, especially of the apologetic kind. It is only a couple of centuries later that Apologetic literature really took off, and became a serious preoccupation of Christian thinkers. We also know that a lot of their writings have not survived. Eusebius, who was a contemporary of Nicaea and attended the council, was also the first Christian historian and a very good one. He was familiar with and quoted from many earlier Christian sources some of which have not survived. Yet he was very hot on the subject of deification. Here is a quote from one of my Blog articles which I had linked to earlier (emphasis added):

This doctrine of deification was also reflected in the teachings of Eusebius, the first historian of the Christian community.

He was acquainted with all the top scholars before his time and was aware of the principal theological concepts then being taught throughout the whole of Christendom.

When all his works are surveyed, it shows what real knowledge of early New Testament truth was understood at the time. . . .

In regard to the doctrine of salvation in Christ, Eusebius hit the nail right on the head. In fact, he merely stated what all knowledgeable scholars were aware of at the time. Note what Eusebius said about the meaning of Christian salvation:

â??The Word of God [Christ] is now God as He had been man, in order to deify mankind together with himselfâ? (

Demonst.

iv.14). It was clearly understood by Eusebius that mankind is on earth finally to become, through Christ,

as divine as Christ Jesus is now Himself divine

.

Professor Ferrar, who translated Eusebiusâ?? work

Demonstratio Evangelica,

gave an overall view of Eusebiusâ?? understanding of salvation and how he reflected the general belief of all major theologians of his time. Ferrar said the doctrine of human deification which came by union with Christ is â??perhaps the greatest theological system of antiquity, and it is obvious how it [deification] lies behind and beneath all that Eusebius saysâ? (Intro.

Proof of the Gospel,

vol. I. p.xxvii).

As a good historian of early Christianity, Eusebius would not have been such a keen believer in deification if he had not been satisfied that it was a fundamental teaching of Christianity from the earliest times. He had studied all the earliest Christian sources many of which have not survived, and knew what the earliest Christians believed.

zerinus.

[shalamabobbi]

Of course, that is not the only translation of Deut 6:4, and it is not particularly accurate.

Your point that the word "'echâd" means something other than "one" is good, but the context does not necessarily give us what you'd like out of this passage. But the other words are not as rendered in most versions. The reluctance (or taboo) to speak the name Jehovah (or however it is correctly pronounced) led to the misapplication of the word "Lord" in its place.

But "Jehovah [our] God [is] united Jehovah" is very nearly meaningless without an understanding of both the cultural

and

spiritual contexts of the pronouncement. The cultural is difficult, but the spiritual is nigh impossible without individual revelation. For what Moses, and by extension, God, meant by this is not to be had except through the Holy Ghost. The main meaning, whatever else one may read into it (or have given to him), is that the God of Israel is not the God of the Canaanites or the Egyptians (or Greeks or Babylonians), He was supreme to any other god(s), and was not to be seen as among them, even as the prime in a pantheon.

The rest is conjecture, unless you are saying you have a direct revelation. But I haven't heard that from you.

Lehi

Hi LeSellers,

I am wondering if there is a distinction in the word translated as 'one' in passages like those found in Isaiah for one God and passages like

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Ex 24:3 ..all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.

2 Pet 3:8 ..one day is with the Lord as a thousand years..

If in english the word 'one' can in fact refer to numerically more than one, does this also happen in the original? Thanks.

Bob

[cksalmon]

Hi LeSellers,

I am wondering if there is a distinction in the word translated as 'one' in passages like those found in Isaiah for one God and passages like

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Ex 24:3 ..all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.

2 Pet 3:8 ..one day is with the Lord as a thousand years..

If in english the word 'one' can in fact refer to numerically more than one, does this also happen in the original? Thanks.

Bob

Hi shalamabobbi--

Genesis 2.24 employs echâd.

Exodus 24.3 employs echâd.

2 Peter 3.8 employs Gr. mia ("one"), though I don't believe that this example is relevant to the foregoing discussion.

Best.

cks

[LeSellers]

Hi LeSellers,

My mother-in-law calls me Lehi; you can, too: it's my name. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton called me that.

I am wondering if there is a distinction in the word translated as 'one' in passages like those found in Isaiah for one God and passages like

That may or may not be germane. I am not a Hebrew student. My point was that the Shema is unintelligible without revelation/inspiration. How does one even begin to parse the sentence: "Jehovah [our] God [is] united Jehovah"?

If in english the word 'one' can in fact refer to numerically more than one, does this also happen in the original? Thanks.

It doesn't matter, since we LDS also believe in a compound God. Arguing on this verse will always pivot, not on the meaning of 'echâd", but on the meaning of "Jehovah".

Lehi

[zerinus]

Deification was largely absent from the earliest church fathers, only really being examined with the writings of Irenaeus. Was the church apostate by the time of Irenaeus, or was the doctrine of deification revealed to him by people in authority at that time, in your opinion?

Perhaps that is because the earliest Christians didnâ??t produce that much writing, especially of the apologetic kind. It is only a couple of centuries later that Apologetic literature really took off, and became a serious preoccupation of Christian thinkers. We also know that a lot of their writings have not survived. Eusebius, who was a contemporary of Nicaea and attended the council, was also the first Christian historian and a very good one. He was familiar with and quoted from many earlier Christian sources some of which have not survived. Yet he was very hot on the subject of deification. Here is a quote from one of my Blog articles which I had linked to earlier (emphasis added):

This doctrine of deification was also reflected in the teachings of Eusebius, the first historian of the Christian community.

He was acquainted with all the top scholars before his time and was aware of the principal theological concepts then being taught throughout the whole of Christendom.

When all his works are surveyed, it shows what real knowledge of early New Testament truth was understood at the time. . . .

In regard to the doctrine of salvation in Christ, Eusebius hit the nail right on the head. In fact, he merely stated what all knowledgeable scholars were aware of at the time. Note what Eusebius said about the meaning of Christian salvation:

â??The Word of God [Christ] is now God as He had been man, in order to deify mankind together with himselfâ? (

Demonst.

iv.14). It was clearly understood by Eusebius that mankind is on earth finally to become, through Christ,

as divine as Christ Jesus is now Himself divine

.

Professor Ferrar, who translated Eusebiusâ?? work

Demonstratio Evangelica,

gave an overall view of Eusebiusâ?? understanding of salvation and how he reflected the general belief of all major theologians of his time. Ferrar said the doctrine of human deification which came by union with Christ is â??perhaps the greatest theological system of antiquity, and it is obvious how it [deification] lies behind and beneath all that Eusebius saysâ? (Intro.

Proof of the Gospel,

vol. I. p.xxvii).

As a good historian of early Christianity, Eusebius would not have been such a keen believer in deification if he had not been satisfied that it was a fundamental teaching of Christianity from the earliest times. He had studied all the earliest Christian sources many of which have not survived, and knew what the earliest Christians believed.

zerinus.

Bump for rhino. I had modified my previous post and did not want you to miss it.

zerinus

[JDave]

I'll be back, I think I have some more left in me here!

I'll be back a bit later (tomorrow hopefully) as well with some response.

[JDave]

It's not that we're avoiding separation, but that we understand that separation can't happen, so we start from that point. Does that make sense?

It does. But after starting from that point one must read into the text the rest. I read into the text that there is no separation of purpose and you read into the text that there is no separation of substance. I was just saying that it isn't spelled out in the scriptures. The Trinitarian point of view makes sense, but I have a hard time 'naturally' reading that view into the scriptures. I must be a Mormon...

Well, first of all, in Christology there isn't really a "human Christ" and a "divine Christ". There is only "Jesus Christ", who is both fully divine and fully human. These two natures are bound in one actual person, whose name is "Jesus Christ". So when certain things like forgiving sins or reading minds is happening, it is the divine nature making it possible, but Jesus Christ is the one doing it. Likewise, when Jesus is tempted or hungry or dying, it is human nature that makes that possible, but the same Jesus Christ is being tempted, hungering and dying. So there's no schizophrenia, as if there are two separate people taking turns puppeteering the same human body.

This makes sense until I try to add on the fact that there is no mixing of the substance, that the circles don't overlap -- they simply touch. Then it starts to seem that there are two separate things interacting.

Gotta go. Maybe respond a bit more later.

[nathansoz]

Wow you guys have added a ton to this discussion. I've been out sick for a while, nasty cold is going around here in Oregon. Hopefully I can catch up and jump back in.

[JDave]

Well, first of all, in Christology there isn't really a "human Christ" and a "divine Christ". There is only "Jesus Christ", who is both fully divine and fully human. These two natures are bound in one actual person, whose name is "Jesus Christ". ... I don't think it was necessarily a change, at least in terms of nature. For an imperfect analogy, if I put on a suit and go to a supermarket I've never gone to, it represents a change in my behavior, a likely change in the relationship with my old supermarket, and a change in my appearance (being a t-shirt and jeans guy myself). But I am still me, I still have the same basic nature.

Now, what is going on in the incarnation is much different, much deeper than that, but I don't see how it necessitates a change in the divine nature.

It's these two disparate ideas that I can't put together. 1 - Christ had human and divine in one person. 2 - Christ acquired a human body but didn't change. For the first to work out, with Christ truly experiencing humanity and being tempted He would have to truly be human -- not just put on a body like a suit. Christ was born into a body, grew up, and died. After that He was resurrected, again retaining His body -- now permanently. This all makes the human body seem much more integral to Christ's nature.

I think this is the only way to make sense of all the biblical data. We have verses that tell us Christ was fully human in every way, and we have verses that tell us that he was fully God as well. We have verses that say God is unchanging by nature. And so on and so forth. What we end up with is a solution that is logically coherent, but virtually impossible to fully understand or visualize. And this is why I tend to avoid Christology--not my favorite theological topic!

It's certainly not the only way to make sense of it, but I understand the impetus for resolving it as you describe. I think that it is holding to a bit more literalism than the Bible requires. There is so much in there of imagery and symbolism that cannot be taken literally. Any person from any religion is required to decide what is literal and what is figurative. Thanks for discussing a bit of Christology with me. It bears on the Trinity definition and it is intriguing to think about. Makes me rethink my own doctrine with respect to Christ's mortality.

[rhinomelon]

Bump for rhino. I had modified my previous post and did not want you to miss it.

Just for the record, I don't consider your personal blog to be an authoritative source for information about the early church. Like any blog (including my own), it should be considered an authoritative source for information about the author's opinions, little more.

In any case, since Eusebius was writing in the fourth century, it is not at all surprising that he was familiar with the doctrine of deification. Whether he saw it in any organized form before Irenaeus is still an open question.

It does. But after starting from that point one must read into the text the rest. I read into the text that there is no separation of purpose and you read into the text that there is no separation of substance. I was just saying that it isn't spelled out in the scriptures. The Trinitarian point of view makes sense, but I have a hard time 'naturally' reading that view into the scriptures. I must be a Mormon...

Interpretation is always a foundational issue, as are our preconceptions. I fully admit I have them, as does everyone else. I will also admit it took me a while to think in LDS boxes. Contradictions that I thought were there actually vanished when I made the effort to think as LDS do. Such contradictions were between LDS beliefs and my own (which I couldn't really expect them to hold, eh?).

This makes sense until I try to add on the fact that there is no mixing of the substance, that the circles don't overlap -- they simply touch. Then it starts to seem that there are two separate things interacting.

There are definitely two separate natures interacting in Jesus Christ. They simply do not mix together, which would create something different from either humanity or divinity, what the Latin fathers sometimes called the "tertium quid", or "third substance". Such a being would neither be divine enough to save us and reconcile us to God, nor would he be human enough to actually live a perfect human life and apply that salvation to humanity.

It's these two disparate ideas that I can't put together. 1 - Christ had human and divine in one person. 2 - Christ acquired a human body but didn't change. For the first to work out, with Christ truly experiencing humanity and being tempted He would have to truly be human -- not just put on a body like a suit. Christ was born into a body, grew up, and died. After that He was resurrected, again retaining His body -- now permanently. This all makes the human body seem much more integral to Christ's nature.

Here's another key distinction to make here. It helps to distinguish between the Son before the incarnation, and Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Son, human and divine. Applying this rubric to the above would yield: 1-Christ did have a human and divine nature in one person. 2- The Son "acquired" a human body, but did not change according to his divinity. The name of this embodied God is and was Jesus Christ. In his humanity, Jesus Christ certainly did change and grow and die, just as we all do. But in his divinity, he remained fully divine, unchanging. The human body certainly is integral to the person of Jesus Christ, just as his divinity is. The humanity of Christ is just as necessary as his divinity.

It's certainly not the only way to make sense of it, but I understand the impetus for resolving it as you describe. I think that it is holding to a bit more literalism than the Bible requires. There is so much in there of imagery and symbolism that cannot be taken literally.

I literally burst out laughing at this part, because mainstream Christians tend to see LDS as way too literalistic in their interpretations, mostly involving the various "body parts" of God in the Old Testament. I've even heard LDS take pride in the fact that they take the scriptures so literally. But you make a good point in turning it around! It was just refreshingly unexpected...

Tonight, if I have some time during my library desk duties, I'd like to post a summary of the thread thus far. Apparently zerinus has chosen to believe the debate is over, and that mainstream Christians were completely unable to marshal any scriptural support for this position. I think even a cursory reading of this thread will demonstrate just the opposite, but I'll wait and see. Until then, take care, everyone

[nathansoz]

Interpretation is always a foundational issue, as are our preconceptions. I fully admit I have them, as does everyone else. I will also admit it took me a while to think in LDS boxes. Contradictions that I thought were there actually vanished when I made the effort to think as LDS do. Such contradictions were between LDS beliefs and my own (which I couldn't really expect them to hold, eh?)

Its a little off topic, but how did you get to that place where you could think in LDS terms? Did you do a lot of reading? If so, what?

[rhinomelon]

Its a little off topic, but how did you get to that place where you could think in LDS terms? Did you do a lot of reading? If so, what?

I did do a lot of reading, but the reading only helped somewhat. Since it was LDS authors writing for generally LDS readers, I still needed to be able to think in LDS terms. Honestly, what really helped the most was hanging out on the boards here, and not focusing on debating, but rather understanding. If I had a question, I'd just post it and people would post all sorts of responses, like analogies and LDS scripture references and bits of their own understanding. It helped a LOT!

And even when discussing an area on which we disagree, I think it is much more important to understand the other point of view than to "win" the argument. That perspective has the added advantage of making most conversations productive, even the ones where you get your clock cleaned

So yeah, that's my advice, such as it is. Also read stuff from non-Mormons, but those who seek to understand LDS beliefs, not just "defeat" them, fairly or not. "How Wide the Divide?" is a good one for that. Also, on the denser side, "The New Mormon Challenge", which tackles a variety of issues.

If I think of some more, I'll pass them on. Take care

[nathansoz]

I did do a lot of reading, but the reading only helped somewhat. Since it was LDS authors writing for generally LDS readers, I still needed to be able to think in LDS terms. Honestly, what really helped the most was hanging out on the boards here, and not focusing on debating, but rather understanding. If I had a question, I'd just post it and people would post all sorts of responses, like analogies and LDS scripture references and bits of their own understanding. It helped a LOT!

And even when discussing an area on which we disagree, I think it is much more important to understand the other point of view than to "win" the argument. That perspective has the added advantage of making most conversations productive, even the ones where you get your clock cleaned

So yeah, that's my advice, such as it is. Also read stuff from non-Mormons, but those who seek to understand LDS beliefs, not just "defeat" them, fairly or not. "How Wide the Divide?" is a good one for that. Also, on the denser side, "The New Mormon Challenge", which tackles a variety of issues.

If I think of some more, I'll pass them on. Take care

Thanks. Did you by chance read the BOM, and if so did that help your understanding?

[rhinomelon]

Thanks. Did you by chance read the BOM, and if so did that help your understanding?

I've read the BoM several times, but it actually put up more of a barrier to seeing things the "LDS way", at least at first. The reason is that the language used in the BoM fits in quite nicely with mainstream Christian theology; certain concepts and phrases resonated with me in a way they would not to LDS. In other words, it was too close to how I already thought about my own faith, so it was harder to separate my own beliefs from LDS ones.

For instance, there's a great deal in the Book of Mormon about monotheism, one heaven, one hell, Father/Son/Spirit being one God, etc. It was too easy for me to simply interpret those passages in accordance with my own beliefs. What's actually more helpful for getting you thinking differently is reading the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The teachings and language of those works are quite different, so you have to think harder about another perspective.

Take care, everyone

[zerinus]

Just for the record, I don't consider your personal blog to be an authoritative source for information about the early church. Like any blog (including my own), it should be considered an authoritative source for information about the author's opinions, little more.

And equally for the record, that quote was not from my Blog. It was quoted in my Blog from another source, which I had provided the link to. That was essentially a quote from Eusebius, and an understanding of him that I happened to agree with. If you disagree with that understanding, you can tell us why, instead of dodging the issue by complaining about where it came from.

In any case, since Eusebius was writing in the fourth century, it is not at all surprising that he was familiar with the doctrine of deification. Whether he saw it in any organized form before Irenaeus is still an open question.

Eusebius was born in 265, which puts him in the third century; although his lifespan continues into the fourth century. He was 60 years old when he attended the Council of Nicaea in 325. Eusebius was also a very great scholar, and the first historian of the Christian church. He is dubbed the father of church history. He also had unprecedented access to earlier Christian writings many of which have not survived. We only know that they existed because of the references he made or quotations he gave of them in his history. So unless you are going to accuse him of dishonesty, hypocrisy, or lack of basic intelligence, his overwhelming support for the doctrine of deification carries a lot of weight. It means that he considered it a doctrine belonging to the original Christian revelation, and not something derived from paganism or Greek mythology. That opinion carries a lot of weight coming from someone like Eusebius.

zerinus

[rhinomelon]

It was clearly understood by Eusebius that mankind is on earth finally to become, through Christ, as divine as Christ Jesus is now Himself divine.

Is the above a quote from you or another source?

And I don't have a problem at all with Eusebius. And I agree that deification was taught in early Christianity (though in a form not familiar to LDS).

So unless you are going to accuse him of dishonesty, hypocrisy, or lack of basic intelligence, his overwhelming support for the doctrine of deification carries a lot of weight. It means that he considered it a doctrine belonging to the original Christian revelation, and not something derived from paganism or Greek mythology. That opinion carries a lot of weight coming from someone like Eusebius.

I also believe that these men saw God's revelation at work even in Greek philosophy. Eusebius also considered the Trinity a doctrine belonging to Christian revelation (although he had to be convinced of that over time). Do you trust him now? In any case, I don't think our disagreement in this area has much to do with the Trinity per se. I'm getting back to that more important topic.

As I have repeatedly stated here, and demonstrated in the other thread, the biggest problem with the Trinity is not that it is incomprehensible, but that it is unscriptural and untrue. It has no basis in Christian revelation, and it is not Christian doctrine. Trinitarianism is a purely philosophical concept that is being defended here by rhino and others on purely philosophical terms. They do not even make the effort to defend it scripturally because they know they canâ??t. Those who tried it in the other thread failed.

So this is zerinus' assessment of this discussion so far, as posted on the "hole in non-Mormon theology" thread. I think even a cursory reading of this thread demonstrates that mainstream Christian defenders of the Trinity have quoted more scripture than zerinus or the LDS posters. Maybe he should re-read the thread here. It's one thing to disagree with someone else's interpretation of Scripture; it's quite another to blatantly ignore the fact that they have one at all!

Zerinus has hung almost his entire case on one scripture passage, John 17. As has been noted (and not contested), this verse merely states that we are to be one as the Father and Son are one, but it does not say "in what respect", or "in all respects". This makes this passage neutral in terms of zerinus' argument, as it does not definitely state what kind of unity or how far it goes. If zerinus would like to correct this, I invite him to, with a look at the Greek text. As it stands now, this verse fits in just as well with the Trinitarian interpretation as it does with the LDS one.

Zerinus has also ignored the multiple passages we have cited in support of Trinitarian thought. I will go over them here, and try to summarize briefly exactly what these verses are understood to say, and how they fit into the Trinity.

First, monotheism. I don't think zerinus would argue this point, but just in case he only pays attention to scripture references, here you go: Deuteronomy 4:35 , Isaiah 44:6 , Deut. 4:39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32; Isa. 37:20; 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5, 14, 21-22; 46:9. , John 5:44, Romans 3:30 , Rom. 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6, 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25. And this is a partial list, there are more references I could cite. But this should do.

Next, John 1 speaks of the Word being God, while also being distinct from Him. Then this Word becomes flesh in Jesus Christ, who is fully divine. This demonstrates both the equality of the Son to the Father (both being fully God), and Son becoming incarnate, a full human being. It also makes a clear distinction between the divine nature and the human nature. After all, the Son became something he was not already. Zerinus has not addressed this passage at all.

Next, Philippians 2 recounts an ancient hymn that most biblical scholars believe predates Paul himself. Very very early. It speaks of the Son being equal to God (equality within the Godhead, as well as same nature), but then willingly humbling himself, giving up his divine equality to take on the form of a servant (i.e. human beings). This passage demonstrates the equality of the persons within the Trinity, as well as making a clear distinction between the divine nature and the human nature, and also demonstrates a clear difference in relationship between Father and Son and God and the rest of humanity.

Next, Colossians 1 speaks of Christ as "the fulness of deity in bodily form". First, this again points to a different sort of relationship between the Son and the Father, than between human beings and God. In fact, these last three verses demonstrate that zerinus' use of John 17 is overreaching; can he tell us anyone else who is referred to as "the fulness of deity in bodily form"? Or "equal with God"? How about anyone who is called "God" in the sense that the one God is called "God", as the Word was in John 1? So this passage in Colossians posits a unique unity between Father and Son; as a side note, it also strongly implies that the Father is not an embodied being, as LDS believe, nor does "divinity" have to be embodied. After all, if the Father were embodied, why doesn't anyone speak of the Father as "the fulness of deity in bodily form," and what's so special about the Son being this way? Therefore, God is not embodied by nature, but took on flesh through the incarnation of the Son in Jesus Christ, who is fully God (John 1, Colossians 1, Philippians 2) as well as fully man (John 1 again, Philippians 2 again, Hebrews 3, if I remember right).

I could quote other passages here as well, but these are some biggies. Zerinus has thus far ignored them, ignored the problems with his own reliance on John 17, and then gone elsewhere and pretended that he handily defeated those "unscriptural" Trinitarians. Well, zerinus, please come back and remind us why you won. I'm not seeing it, and I know I'm not alone in that.

Take care, everyone

[zerinus]

Is the above a quote from you or another source?

It was from another source. Everything I had typed in a different color was a quotation from another source, the link to which was given above it.

And I don't have a problem at all with Eusebius. And I agree that deification was taught in early Christianity (though in a form not familiar to LDS).

The terms used to describe it may have been different, but in essence it amounted to the same thing. We have additional doctrine revealed that they did not have, and that changes the equation and terminology a little bit.

I also believe that these men saw God's revelation at work even in Greek philosophy.

So do we, as per my previous quote.

Eusebius also considered the Trinity a doctrine belonging to Christian revelation (although he had to be convinced of that over time). Do you trust him now? In any case, I don't think our disagreement in this area has much to do with the Trinity per se. I'm getting back to that more important topic.

I question that. Neither he, nor any Christian of that time understood the Trinity as you understand and describe it today. They believed in the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost; and so do we. But there is nothing in their writings that suggest that they understood it in the same terms as you describe it today.

So this is zerinus' assessment of this discussion so far, as posted on the "hole in non-Mormon theology" thread. I think even a cursory reading of this thread demonstrates that mainstream Christian defenders of the Trinity have quoted more scripture than zerinus or the LDS posters. Maybe he should re-read the thread here. It's one thing to disagree with someone else's interpretation of Scripture; it's quite another to blatantly ignore the fact that they have one at all!

The issue is not settled by the number of scriptures you quote, but how relevant and applicable they are to the case, and you are able to defend that with sound reason.

Zerinus has hung almost his entire case on one scripture passage, John 17.

Not true. I discussed that a lot because you kept challenging what it teaches. But that is not the main scriptural reason for defending the separate identities of the members of the Trinity. The main scriptural passages are those that identify the Father and the Son as to separate Beings; and they are many. Every verse in which the Son prays to the father is proof. Every verse in which the Son speaks of the Father as someone separate from himself is a proof. Every verse in which the Father speaks separately and independently from the Son is proof. Every verse in which the Father is seen separately from the Son is proof. They are too many to quote.

As has been noted (and not contested), this verse merely states that we are to be one as the Father and Son are one, but it does not say "in what respect", or "in all respects". This makes this passage neutral in terms of zerinus' argument, as it does not definitely state what kind of unity or how far it goes. If zerinus would like to correct this, I invite him to, with a look at the Greek text. As it stands now, this verse fits in just as well with the Trinitarian interpretation as it does with the LDS one.

Already addressed in my previous posts. No need to labor that issue any more.

Zerinus has also ignored the multiple passages we have cited in support of Trinitarian thought. I will go over them here, and try to summarize briefly exactly what these verses are understood to say, and how they fit into the Trinity.

First, monotheism. I don't think zerinus would argue this point, but just in case he only pays attention to scripture references, here you go: Deuteronomy 4:35 , Isaiah 44:6 , Deut. 4:39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32; Isa. 37:20; 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5, 14, 21-22; 46:9. , John 5:44, Romans 3:30 , Rom. 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6, 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25. And this is a partial list, there are more references I could cite. But this should do.

I ignored no such thing. Those verses were not all brought up so that I could address them. I addressed as many of them as you brought up. There are many different answers for those. Each verse needs to considered and addressed in its own context. That is why it is not practicable to give a lump sum answer to then all together. Most of the Old Testament passages should be understood in the context of the idolatrous practices of the ancients. Some of the New Testament passages also need to be understood in the same context. Others can be understood in the same context that the early Christians understood themâ??i.e. that there were many gods, with a chain of subordination running though them. Jesus was subordinate to the Father, while the Saints that became gods remained subordinate to Jesus, as Clement teaches for example. In one sense there is only One God because all are subordinate to Him, and pray to Him, and regard Him as their God. In another sense there is more than one god, all of who are subordinate to that One Supreme GOD. What is there about this that you do not understand?

Next, John 1 speaks of the Word being God, while also being distinct from Him.

That is not how I read that verse. To me that verse is talking of two separate beings, each of whom is God.

Then this Word becomes flesh in Jesus Christ, who is fully divine. This demonstrates both the equality of the Son to the Father (both being fully God), and Son becoming incarnate, a full human being.

It does teach the Son becoming incarnate; but it doesnâ??t say anything about the Father and the Son being one and the same â??Godâ?.

It also makes a clear distinction between the divine nature and the human nature. After all, the Son became something he was not already.

By becoming incarnate means simply that He took upon Him flesh and bloodâ??as we do when we are born into the world. It does not mean His nature somehow â??changingâ? as a consequence. We believe that we too existed as spirits before we were born; and in that sense we too assume â??flesh and bloodâ? in the same way as He did; no difference.

Zerinus has not addressed this passage at all.

That is because nobody brought it up, so it was not addressed. It is up to you folks to bring your arguments so they can be addressed.

Next, Philippians 2 recounts an ancient hymn that most biblical scholars believe predates Paul himself. Very very early. It speaks of the Son being equal to God (equality within the Godhead, as well as same nature), but then willingly humbling himself, giving up his divine equality to take on the form of a servant (i.e. human beings). This passage demonstrates the equality of the persons within the Trinity, as well as making a clear distinction between the divine nature and the human nature, and also demonstrates a clear difference in relationship between Father and Son and God and the rest of humanity.

I canâ??t comment on something that is so speculative as that. Neither can I accept it as sound argument in favor of Trinitarian theology.

Next, Colossians 1 speaks of Christ as "the fulness of deity in bodily form".

By which I understand that Jesus is fully divine, nothing else.

First, this again points to a different sort of relationship between the Son and the Father, than between human beings and God. In fact, these last three verses demonstrate that zerinus' use of John 17 is overreaching; can he tell us anyone else who is referred to as "the fulness of deity in bodily form"? Or "equal with God"?

I think that I have already adequately addressed that. I donâ??t see why I have to repeat it over and over again. Although I do not question the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, John 17 makes it clear that the kind of unity that exists between them should be the same. Although there is no doubt that there is a special relationship between the father and the Son, the kind of unity that exists between them is not a byproduct of that special relationship, but is something that can be shared with the disciples. That is what John 17 teachesâ??and this is the last time I am going to repeat that argument!

How about anyone who is called "God" in the sense that the one God is called "God", as the Word was in John 1?

See above.

So this passage in Colossians posits a unique unity between Father and Son; . . .

No it doesnâ??t!

. . . as a side note, it also strongly implies that the Father is not an embodied being, as LDS believe, nor does "divinity" have to be embodied. After all, if the Father were embodied, why doesn't anyone speak of the Father as "the fulness of deity in bodily form," and what's so special about the Son being this way? Therefore, God is not embodied by nature, but took on flesh through the incarnation of the Son in Jesus Christ, who is fully God (John 1, Colossians 1, Philippians 2) as well as fully man (John 1 again, Philippians 2 again, Hebrews 3, if I remember right).

You got really carried away with that one. I donâ??t see the logic behind that conclusion at all.

I could quote other passages here as well, but these are some biggies. Zerinus has thus far ignored them, ignored the problems with his own reliance on John 17, . . .

I did no such thing. I addressed all the questions that were raised, and did not address the ones that were not brought up.

. . . and then gone elsewhere and pretended that he handily defeated those "unscriptural" Trinitarians. Well, zerinus, please come back and remind us why you won. I'm not seeing it, and I know I'm not alone in that.

LOL! I will let others decide who won or lost. They are also free to come here and participate in the discussion if they want to. They havenâ??t done that very much so far. I will let you draw your own conclusion from that.

zerinus

[cksalmon]

The issue is not settled by the number of scriptures you quote, but how relevant and applicable they are to the case, and you are able to defend that with sound reason.

Hey rhino--

Not that you will have missed this point, but just to underscore it: Whereas before the charge was that you failed to cite biblical texts for your beliefs, now the charge is that, no matter how many biblical texts you have cited, they have tended to be irrelevant, non-applicable, and unable to be defended with sound reason.

Fortunately, I have a solution for your dilemma. If you'd just agree on all points with zerinus, I feel confident that your multiple citations would instantaneously, in his mind, take on the character of relevance, applicability, and of being demonstrative of sound reason.

It's all so simple, really.

Best.

cks