Posted on 04/29/2008 6:06:04 AM PDT by restornu
#2 – As to Yahweh being different than Jehovah, as politely as possible, BUNK. Now you demonstrate that you don’t know Hebrew as well as Greek. “Jehovah” is an English transliteration of Yahweh. They are exactly the same. Original Hebrew had no vowels, only consonants and in both instances is always worded: YHWH (whether it is translated into English ‘Yahweh or Jehovah’ its always seen in the original text as YHWH).
#3 – As to your assertions that the church was ‘hellenized’ again BUNK. This is a fallacy of false cause (misrepresents the cause). The Trinity is an utterly unique Christian doctrine. Pagans worshipped and believed in many gods (such as you do within the LDS, proving that the LDS has more in common with pagan culture than historical Christianity does) hence, the references to your so-called parallelisms of the pagans were to THREE separate gods NOT one God in existing in three distinct Persons. Christianity historically has stood apart as being totally unique, not a plurality of Gods, not merely one person monotheism, but ONE GOD, but 3 distinct persons within that Godhead of the very same essence or substance. This is what Scripture itself teaches.
#4 – As to your references to Tertullian or Origen its interesting you never provide source citations. Probably because anti-trinitarians always quote them out of context. This is also an argument from ignorance as they both unequivocally believed in the full deity of Christ. Here’s what Tertullian and Origen and others have said completely:
All quotes are from “Ante-Nicene Fathers” (ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887; reprint, 10 vols. Published by Peabody; MA: Hendrickson, c1994)
Tertullian is the first person who came up with the word ‘Trinity’. To claim that Tertullian ever believed anything else completely distorts what he meant. “For the very church itself – properly and principally – the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity [trinitas], of the One Divinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (4:99 A.D 213) “Surely I might venture to claim the very Word also as being of the Creator’s [Father] substance” (3:356). “Now, if He too is God, for according to John, ‘The Word was God,’ then you have two Beings—One who commands that the thing to be made, and the other who creates. In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another. I have already explained: on the ground of personality, NOT OF SUBSTANCE. And in the way of distinction, NOT OF DIVISION. I must everywhere hold only one substance, in three coherent and inseparable [persons](3:607).
As to Origen (c. A.D. 228) – “The Word that was in the beginning with God (who is also very God) may come to us” (4:449). ”The Son is not different from the Father IN SUBSTANCE”(9:336). “Saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all. That is, it is made complete by naming the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In this, we join the name of the Holy Spirit to the Unbegotten God (the Father) and to His Only-Begotten Son (4:252).”
I can go on and on here…this forum is not capable of the bandwidth to start posting statement after statement (pre-Nicene statements at that) of early Church leaders teaching and defending the Deity of Christ and the Doctrine of the Trinity. What the LDS teach along with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and any other group which denies the Triune nature of God is and has always been heresy.
#5 – As to Elohim being separate from Yahweh or Jehovah, again politely BUNK. But thank you for pointing out the LDS belief in polytheism firmly aligning yourself with hellenistic Greeks and other pagans of the time period, not Christianity. Again you demonstrate ignorance of Hebrew, not surprising since you follow a false prophet.
YHWH is referred to as Elohim throughout the Old Testament. Elohim is a noun with the plural ending –im ים – it does not mean ‘gods’ plural. Hebrew distinguishes between a numerical plural and a majestic plural by the verbs, adjectives, and pronouns that accompany the noun. A majestic plural denotes greatness and majesty it does not necessitate plurality of substance. A numerically plural noun gets plural verbs, adjectives and pronouns while a numerically singular noun, even with a plural ending such as Elohim, gets singular verbs, adjectives and pronouns. When Elohim is used as a numerical plural meaning ‘gods’, for example in such passages referring to idolatry and false gods, it is rendered with plural verbs, adjectives, and pronouns in those passages. However, when referring to YHWH, Elohim ALWAYS uses singular verbs, adjectives, and pronouns, making it crystal clear (except for heretics such as the LDS) that Elohim in this instance is a numerical singular! Unfortunately for you and other anti-trinitarians who attack the true nature of God, these passages using Elohim (plural noun + singular verb) is Old Testament PROOF of God’s triunity in nature.
#6 – Once again, you really never studied my links did you? Why? AFRAID TO?
It will be interesting to see a response (if there is one). I missed the part where they tried to claim that Jehovah and Yahweh were two distint Gods. I wonder if they think Adonai is the name of the Holy Spirit.
Nice try but you obviously don’t know your Greek.
It's all reformed Egyptian to them!
Thanks for sharing that you accept wolves among the Flock where you followship!
Is that a Mormon term?
Whatever attributes therefore you require as worthy of God, must be found in the Father, who is invisible and unapproachable, and placid, and the God of the philosophers; whereas those qualities which you censure as unworthy must be supposed to be in the Son . .Tertullian, Against Marcion 2:27, in ANF 3:319.
Where Christians differ is whether they think it was a good or bad thing. Your continued denial of Hellenic influence speaks more about your understanding of history. Tertullian beleived in modalism which has been declared heretical as well by "Orthodox" Christians.
What I find interesting is one of the main things "Orthodox" Christians really seem to agree on is that they all call each other heretics repeatedly.
Again later in your post you continue to quote those who used a philosophical concept such as "homouosis" which is not found in the Bible. (follow the previous link i posted w hile back for a textual comparison of Plato's and others ideas about one subtance compared to later post apostolic Chrisians who.. ahem.. borrowed them almost verbatim. I realize that "homousis" is found in your quotes when someone was trying to interpret what the Bible really means. You continue to claim homousis "one substance" is in the Bible shows how deeply seated Greek philosophy is in your interpetation of the Bible. If Jesus believed in "one substance" then why didn't he say it? If Jesus didn't say it then why are you insisting it is in there?
I think it is interesting that you insist Hellenization didn't happen then go on to provide Hellenic philospohy as evidenced by one substance.
Please give me your un-Hellenized interpretation of this scripture. "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55-56).
What is most evident in our discussion is the web of intricate historicty and philosphy one must understand to make sense of what many Orthodox believe. I prefer the simple Gospel of Jesus that even a child can understand over the intellectual gymastics and debates that the philsophers have engaged in over the last 2 thousand years.
Anyway it's been fun on this thread. I think I have effetively made my point that Joseph Smith did restore what many early Christian Fathers beleived. If you want to call Justin Martyr a heretic for holding some of the same beliefs as Jospeh Smith fine. At least you haven't thrown around the label Satanist in your latest post to me. Which IMO, is a parralel to you violating Godwin's law (just substitute Satan for Nazi in the clause). Maybe I should be happy you have reverted to good old name calling of "heretic" as I am in good company with the early Christian Fathers.
Well its been fun on this thread but I think it's time to bow out. Last post is all yours.
That always cracked me up...that the mormons consider the Jews to be gentiles, LOL....now, someone will come and and say, "That isn't what it means, it means non-mormons." LOL
When you're in a corner, rely on the old "dispensation" card...it's like a joker...can mean anything, anytime, anyplace the player wishes it to in order to dodge the facts.
LOL, I got promoted from son of perdition to terrestial, maybe next week I can move up to telestial...of course, this is the newest substitute for a slur, replacing "natural man".
Are you “incline” to tendentiousness?
Oh, yeah, Jesus said, "Don't you dare followship with the downtrodden and the out cast."
End of “Foxxy-thon”
#1 - Did he really? Let’s look at Tertullian ‘Against Marcion’ Book 2 Chapter 27 in complete context shall we?????
“And now, that I may briefly pass in review the other points which you have thus far been engaged in collecting, as mean, weak, and unworthy, for demolishing the Creator, I will propound them in a simple and definite statement: that God would have been unable to hold any intercourse with men, if He had not taken on Himself the emotions and affections of man, by means of which He could temper the strength of His majesty, which would no doubt have been incapable of endurance to the moderate capacity of man, by such a humiliation as was indeed degrading to Himself, but necessary for man, and such as on this very account became worthy of God, because nothing is so worthy of God as the salvation of man. If I were arguing with heathens, I should dwell more at length on this point; although with heretics too the discussion does not stand on very different grounds. Inasmuch as ye yourselves have now come to the belief that God moved about in the form and all other circumstances of man's nature, you will of course no longer require to be convinced that God conformed Himself to humanity, but feel yourselves bound by your own faith. For if the God (in whom ye believe,) even from His higher condition, prostrated the supreme dignity of His majesty to such a lowliness as to undergo death, even the death of the cross, why can you not suppose that some humiliations are becoming to our God also, only more tolerable than Jewish contumelies, and crosses, and sepulchres? Are these the humiliations which henceforth are to raise a prejudice against Christ (the subject as He is of human passions) being a partaker of that Godhead against which you make the participation in human qualities a reproach? Now we believe that Christ did ever act in the name of God the Father; that He actually from the beginning held intercourse with (men); actually communed with patriarchs and prophets; was the Son of the Creator; was His Word; whom God made His Son by emitting Him from His own self, and thenceforth set Him over every dispensation and (administration of) His will, making Him a little lower than the angels, as is written in David. In which lowering of His condition He received from the Father a dispensation in those very respects which you blame as human; from the very beginning learning, even then, (that state of a) man which He was destined in the end to become. It is He who descends, He who interrogates, He who demands, He who swears. With regard, however, to the Father, the very gospel which is common to us will testify that He was never visible, according to the word of Christ: "No man knoweth the Father, save the Son." For even in the Old Testament He had declared, "No man shall see me, and live." He means that the Father is invisible, in whose authority and in whose name was He God who appeared as the Son of God. But with us Christ is received in the person of Christ, because even in this manner is He our God. [Your quote mine begins here:]Whatever attributes therefore you require as worthy of God, must be found in the Father, who is invisible and unapproachable, and placid, and (so to speak) the God of the philosophers; whereas those qualities which you censure as unworthy must be supposed to be in the Son, who has been seen, and heard, and encountered, the Witness and Servant of the Father, uniting in Himself man and God,…”……Tertullian, a more complete quote, Against Marcion Book II, Chapter 27.
The whole of Tertullian’s 5 Books against Marcion is a refutation of Marcion’s heretical beliefs. In these works Tertullian contrasts His God and Marcion’s god and reinforces the Scriptural teaching of the Trinity and Marcion’s heresy. You really should read the entire 5 books before you start quote mining out and distorting what Tertullian was really saying here. And when you read the entire collection, not quote mined parts put out by Jeff Lindsay, Farms or FairLDS you understand your above quote is absurd.
Your continued denial of Hellenic influence speaks more about your understanding of history…
Let’s look at this deeper shall we?
You do realize Hellenism began before Christ when Alexander the Great conquered the Middle East. This influence occurred much earlier than Tertullian’s day, you do realize that don’t you????? Hint: Our New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew, or even Aramaic, GREEK.
However in spite of this influence, the historical and archaeological evidence show that both Judaism and early Christianity carefully guarded their religious views from the surrounding Hellenistic culture in which they lived. Example: The archaeological work of Eric Meyers on the city of Sepphoris in 1st century Upper Galilee reveals that the Jewish people maintained a strict observance of the Torah in spite of the Hellenistic culture that surrounded them. Archaeology again shows that early Christianity had a far more Jewish influence than a Hellenistic one. The essence of the Christian Gospel is the fulfillment of all the Old Testament covenantal promises fulfilled in a long-awaited Jewish Messiah. To suggest that New Testament Christianity was corrupted by later Hellenistic influences ignores the New Testament itself which clearly teach the triunity of God as I posted to you in my previous links. The LDS itself has been far more influenced by Hellenism with its pantheon of gods and polytheism than any of orthodox Christianity.
You continue to claim homousis "one substance" is in the Bible shows how deeply seated Greek philosophy is in your interpetation of the Bible.
And you continue to show your ignorance of New Testament Greek. Its not Greek philosophy that determines ‘the one substance’ issue: it’s the GREEK text! Look again:
In Hebrews 1:3 - Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person…. The Greek word translated ‘person’ in the above passage is ὑποστάσεως hupostaseōs. It figuratively means essence and may be translated essence or person. It however does LITERALLY mean SUBSTANCE. To say it does not mean the same as substance is a poor translation of the Greek text. The Greek word translated express is χαρακτὴρ charaktēr from charax or literally has the idea of an engraving, a stamped image, or exact representation. So, from the Greek construction the correct translation is χα.ρακ.τὴρ τῆς ὑ.πο.στά.σε.ως or charaktēr tēs hupostaseōs (literally: ‘the exact representation and substance’). For better understanding Hebrews 1:3 is literally ‘who being the brightness of His glory, and the exact representation of His (God’s) substance’. Hupostaseōs is actually translated into the English word ‘substance’ in Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen – so the Greek word hupostaseōs has been translated substance and does mean substance so you are wrong that the idea of substance comes from Greek philosophers. Completely bogus.
Another example: II Cor. 4:4 - In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
The Greek word translated image in the above verse is εἰκὼν eikōn – translation literally means ‘exact representation’. Again, the correct translation would be, ‘who is the exact representation of God’..
Another one:
Colossians Col. 1:19 - For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
The Greek word translated fulness is πλήρωμα plērōma, i.e, to be filled up, in the context of this passage it has the idea of to be filled up with God’s exact representation and substance. A correct rendering of that verse would literally be, ‘for it pleased the Father that in him should an exact representation and substance dwell’.
Yet another one:
Colossians 2:9 - For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
The Greek word dwelleth is κατοικεῖ katoikei, i.e, literally, to house permanently. Full phrase is: κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα katoikei pan to plērōma= literally ‘houses permanently all His [God’s] fullness’. Note again the word plērōma in the above passage. A correct interpretation would be, ‘for in him houses permanently an exact representation and substance of God’. Hardly Greek philosophy, its Greek TEXT, of which you’ve demonstrated you are ignorant.
Please give me your un-Hellenized interpretation of this scripture. "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55-56).
How about just going to the text: ἑστῶτα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ hestōta ek dexiōn tou theos which I’m sure is the phrase you are trying to zero in on. Literally: “Standing out of or from the right hand of God”. When Ek is used in conjunction with dexiōn it ALWAYS conveys the idea of ‘out of’ or ‘from’. Those darned Greek prepositions conjoined with adjectives, what a nuisance for you heretics. Again when you understand the Greek you understand this verse reinforces the triunity of God, it does not mean two separate individuals, rather 2 individuals of the same substance, EXACTLY as the other verses do. Hint: and its in the original language not from philosophy.
You should really concentrate more on the Greek texts rather than Joseph Smith’s Gaelic inscriptions that he tried to pass off as ‘Reformed Egyptian’. And you should also focus more on the evidences of Smith’s failed prophecies proving him to be what he was and is: A fraud. Deut. 18:22 is a HINT here. As to studying history, try studying the various Gnostic heresies which Smith copied from. Here’s a few: The heresies of: Valentinus; Apelles; Ebionaeaus; and Melchisedecians. They all taught many of the same things as the LDS currently does. (Hint: Melchisedecians taught the Melchisedek priesthood held power and was to be attained individually and was not solely found in Christ. Sound familiar?) Mormonism is nothing more than revised Gnosticism, an ancient heresy, of which Smith could freely draw from. Just so you know since you’re so interested in ‘history’.
This was not about the down trodden.
It is not the sinner that is being excommunicated it is the wanton rebellious, the unrepentant there is a vast different!
***I find it intersting that “Orthodox” Christians are always calling each other heretics at the drop of a dime. Lets be objective here really. Who understands the early Christians Doctrines better, Tertullian and Origen, who actually lived and associated with the early Saints or just another FReeper by the handle MarkBsnr? I’ll go with them.***
Picking and choosing are we? I claim no theological authority; to imply that I do is simply disingenuous. The Church, founded by Jesus Christ, and commissioned by the Holy Spirit found that Tertullian and Origen wandered off into heresy. Mark does not on his own claim that they were or weren’t; the Church did and does.
Let’s face it. The theology of Joseph Smith (and rather more, the theology of Sidney Rigdon - who wrote much of the theology of the Stone-Campbell Restorationist movement) was, as much of the Reformation and Restoration was, based upon personal interpretations of cherry picked passages. The biggest difference between Smith and the others is that they didn’t compose entire books of new ‘Scripture’ and claim them as equal to or greater than the Bible.
It is silly to compare the authority of the Church with that of a convicted con man who invented a new religion.
***Paul preached against false doctrines that crept into some of the 7 churches in his NT letters.***
None of which was the developing Hellenized faith.
***It is much like false Doctrines creeping into modern Christian churches today.***
Heresies were present right from the beginning. The Gnostics were the first threat to the fledgling Christian Church. And, looking around, a few of them still survive.
*** The Doctrinal confusion is evidenced by “Trinity” and “Homusosis”. Many lay reformationists actually beleve in Modalism which is considered a heretical form of the trinity by the Catholic church. Homousis comes from Xenophanes and Plato and others. It was adopted by Christians attempting to battle the domaninance of Greek philosophy over Christian truth but by engaging in the philosophical debate with the Jews Philosophy came to dominate in Christianity over the simple Good news of Bible.***
What in the world are you talking about? Greek philosophy over Christian truth? Truth was given to the Church along with the authority to interpret. It is not given to any Tom, Dick or Joseph charismatic enough to attract a following.
***Of course Mormons feel that a full Restoration was needed. ***
Feel however you wish; authority is not given to them, nor was it given to Joseph Smith. The Church was given the promises of Jesus and commissioned by the Holy Spirit; the second and third members of the One Triune God of the Bible.
***Wiki is a good place to read more too here is a short example from OT times. ***
Wikipedia is a lousy reference site. Articles can be written by anyone with an axe to grind.
***Memebrs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believe in the Biblical form of Oneness as descried by Jesus and Stephen not the Hellenic form of Tinitrianism. This restorationist view held by Mormons matches Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Irenaeus who rejected the post Apostlolic Hellenic influence of the philosophers as well. ***
Once again you appear to have it wrong. New Advent says that Justin Martyr’s writings include:
The Holy Ghost occupies the third place in the Trinity (I Apol., vi). He inspired the prophets (I Apol., vi;xxxi; Dial., vii). He gave seven gifts to Christ and descended upon Him (Dial., lxxxvii, lxxxviii). For the real distinction between the Son and the Spirit see Teder, op. cit., 119-23.
Trinity and Oneness, not multiple gods.
I wouldn’t use wiki as an authority whatsoever on any contentious subject. It simply cannot be believed.
***I think I have effetively made my point that Joseph Smith did restore what many early Christian Fathers beleived. If you want to call Justin Martyr a heretic for holding some of the same beliefs as Jospeh Smith fine. ***
The only point that you have effectively made is that the LDS has incorporated some of the earliest held heresies. I see little similarity between Justin Martyr and the LDS fables.
With limited time over the next few days, you will need to be more precise. Your answer is ambiguous at best on this portion of my question. Please take the time to research it.
restortionists, reformationists, etc are not applicable to this question.
define what you mean by it more precisely.
Your definition lacks substance. You speak terminology, but have failed to define it. And since you've wasted this much time, it may help you to perhaps outline some of the specific teachings associated with hellenism. IF you are going to apply it to the Trinity - which greek philosopher taught trinity in the way it is formed post Nicea.
Matthew 9:11-12
11. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and `sinners'?"
12. On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.