Friday, January 1, 2016

Church Fathers on the Scriptures from a post on facebook

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386 A.D.):
“No doctrine concerning the divine and saving mysteries of the faith, however trivial, may be taught without the backing of the holy Scriptures. We must not let ourselves be drawn aside by mere persuasion and cleverness of speech. Do not even give absolute belief to me, the one who tells you these things, unless you receive proof from the divine Scriptures of what I teach. For the faith that brings us salvation acquires its force, not from fallible reasonings, but from what can be proved out of the holy Scriptures.”
“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)
“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Oxford: Parker, 1845, The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17).
Saint Gregory of Nyssa (335-395 A.D.):
“We treat the Holy Bible as the test of every dogma and rule, excepting [should read "accepting"] only such things that agree with the meaning of scripture.”
“We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings…And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all. And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?” - (On the Soul and the Resurrection)
Saint Irenaeus of Lyon (circa 115-175 A.D.):
“They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures…We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith….It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to ‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity….proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.” (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)
Saint Bede the Venerable (672-735 A.D.):
"Holy Scripture is above all other books, not only by its authority, because it is divine, or by its utility, because it leads to eternal life, but also by its antiquity and by its literary form."
Saint John Chrysostom of Constantinople (347–407 A.D.):
"Now if we are willing to examine the Scriptures in this way, carefully and systematically, we shall be able to obtain our salvation. If we unceasingly are preoccupied with them, we shall learn both correctness of doctrine and an upright way of life. (Homily 53 On John)
"This is the cause of all evils, the not knowing the Scriptures. We go into battle without arms, and how are we to come off safe?" (Homily IX On Colossians)
“That which the Scriptures state, ‘the Lord himself has said’, and so, even if someone were to rise from the dead or an angel were to come down from heaven, they would not deserve more credence than the Scriptures.”
"The Holy Scriptures were not given to us that we should enclose them in books, but that we should engrave them upon our hearts."
Saint Innocent of Alaska (August 26, 1797 - March 31, 1879 A.D.):
"First of all, a Christian must thoroughly study the foundations of the Christian faith. To that end, you must read and reread the Holy Scriptures on a regular basis, especially the books of the New Testament. You must not only learn their contents but also develop an interest in their origin, who wrote them and when, how they were preserved and have been handed down to us, and why they are called Divine and Sacred. You must study the Holy Books with simplicity of heart, without prejudice or excessive inquisitiveness, not trying to discover hidden mysteries but trying to learn that which leads us to self-improvement. Certainly all that is necessary for us to know for our salvation is revealed quite clearly and in detail in the Scriptures."
Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 A.D.):
“Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, and lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died….But the case stands not thus; for the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner….the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth…The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus is of a different mind from them. Yet, though Noetus does not understand the truth, the Scriptures are not at once to be repudiated….The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question is first of all to refute the interpretation put upon these passages [of scripture] by these men, and then to explain their real meaning….For whenever they wish to attempt anything underhand, they mutilate the Scriptures. But let him quote the passage as a whole, and he will discover the reason kept in view in writing it….if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage [of scripture], as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word….Many other passages [of scripture], or rather all of them, attest the truth. A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one….What, then, will this Noetus, who knows nothing of the truth, dare to say to these things? And now, as Noetus has been confuted, let us turn to the exhibition of the truth itself, that we may establish the truth, against which all these mighty heresies have arisen without being able to state anything to the purpose. There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9)
Saint Ambrose of Milan (340-4 April, 397 A.D.):
“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)
“The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father…So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint.” (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119)
Saint Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.):
“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.” – Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:16)
Saint Cyprian of Carthage (circa 200–September 14, 258 A.D.):
“Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.’ Also the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which He commanded. If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed.” (Letter 73:2)
Saint Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (circa 200 A.D.-November 17, 265 A.D.):
“Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.” (cited in Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, 7:24)
Saint Basil the Great of Caesarea (circa. 329-January 1, 379 A.D.):
Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right (Letter CCLXXXIII, ANCF, p. 312).
Saint Hilary of Poitiers (circa 300-368 A.D.):
“Their treason involves us in the difficult and dangerous position of having to make a definite pronouncement, beyond the statements of Scripture, upon this grave and abstruse matter….We must proclaim, exactly as we shall find them in the words of Scripture, the majesty and functions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so debar the heretics from robbing these Names of their connotation of Divine character, and compel them by means of these very Names to confine their use of terms to their proper meaning….I would not have you flatter the Son with praises of your own invention; it is well with you if you be satisfied with the written word.” (On the Trinity, 2:5, 3:23)
Saint Jerome (347-30 September, 420 A.D.):
“When, then, anything in my little work seems to you harsh, have regard not to my words, but to the Scripture, whence they are taken.” (Letter, 48:20)
“I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [Scriptures], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else.” (Letter, 53:10)
“When Paula comes to be a little older and to increase like her Spouse in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and man, let her go with her parents to the temple of her true Father but let her not come out of the temple with them. Let them seek her upon the world’s highway amid the crowds and the throng of their kinsfolk, and let them find her nowhere but in the shrine of the Scriptures” (Letter, 107:7)
Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.):
“And now, if I say this to you, although I have repeated it many times, I know that it is not absurd so to do. For it is a ridiculous thing to see the sun, and the moon, and the other stars, continually keeping the same course, and bringing round the different seasons; and to see the computer who may be asked how many are twice two, because he has frequently said that they are four, not ceasing to say again that they are four; and equally so other things, which are confidently admitted, to be continually mentioned and admitted in like manner; yet that he who founds his discourse on the prophetic Scriptures should leave them and abstain from constantly referring to the same Scriptures, because it is thought he can bring forth something better than Scripture. The passage, then, by which I proved that God reveals that there are both angels and hosts in heaven is this: ‘Praise the Lord from the heavens: praise Him in the highest. Praise Him, all His angels: praise Him, all His hosts.’” (Dialogue with Trypho, 85)
Theodoret of Cyrus (393-457 A.D.):
“I shall yield to Scripture alone.” (Dialogues, 1)
Elder Cleopa of Romania (10 April 1912 - 2 December 1998):
"Holy Scripture contains within it unanswerable passages or, as Saint Gregory of Nyssa puts it, 'strong bones'. Some would like to break these bones of Scripture with their wisdom teeth as of yet still only suitable for sucking milk. However, such a thing they would never be able to manage. All who have desired to plunge into the depths of Scripture have drowned in the fathomless ocean that is the wisdom of God. Such was the portion shared by Origen, Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Sabellius, Dioscorus, Eutyches and all the other chiefs of the ancient heresies who have been swallowed up in the unfathomable sea of Holy Scripture. The profundity and depth of Scripture was not the cause of their fall and drowning, but rather they themselves were the cause, due to their own insufficiencies, of being drowned in the depths of the mysteries of the Scriptures.
"Holy Scripture is like a fountain or an endless spring, of the wisdom of God in which we must be steeped and partake in accordance with our level of wisdom and spiritual maturity. Just as we take water from the well with a bucket, empty it into our pitcher and then into our glass in order to quench our bodys thirst, so must we also do with our spiritual thirst when we are urged to drink of the deepest ocean of wisdom, the Holy Scriptures. Thus, spiritually speaking, if we draw more water from the well of Scripture than is drinkable (out of desire for the purity of our intellect (νούς) and heart), due to our pride and inquisitiveness we will be destroyed in our attempt to grasp the incomprehensible with our limited human faculties. If, for example, we were to see a child from the first grade trying to learn and to teach others that which is taught at the university, how much laughter and amusement would it provoke in us! The same and worse happens to those who desire to scrutinize and unravel the incomprehensible mysteries of the Scriptures with an intellect inexperienced and unenlightened by the Holy Spirit."


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. when you read the Bible a lot in huge segments you get more and more of the picture, like a tapestry being woven of many threads but some take this here and that there and come up with Jehovah's Witnessism or other heresies. I like referring to them because they are a retread of several old heresies.

    In reading the arguments against the heresies written in early times, there is constant reference o the Scriptures, to defend the truth, and Irenaeus shows in detail how the gnostics mishandled Scripture and other anti heresy writers show some of this also.

    Additionally you find all kinds of psychological and historical things in Scripture. Some I didn't understand until I went through it and then remembered something I'd read and it got very real to me.

  3. God is incomprehensible except insofar as He has revealed Himself to us. All of the things by which we know anything, weight, height, color, etc. are themselves all created things, as are the laws of physics and biology themselves.

    Fr. Seraphim Rose once said that we can't use these things to try to figure out what was going on during the creation process the first six days of Genesis, because those natural laws themselves were being created also.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. "trinity" is a shorthand for "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." now, if you take ALL the Scriptures relating to each or all of them and put it together, you get the Trinity, one God consisting of Three Persons, The Father who is eternal and unbegotten, The Son who is coeternal with The Father being eternally begotten of Him without a mother, and Who in time entered time by the Incarnation by The Holy Spirit of The Virgin Mary, died and rose permanently and physically from the dead, and The Holy Spirit, unbegotten but proceeding eternally from The Father and comes into the Church through Jesus The Son Who twice referred to Him as FROM THE FATHER but never from Himself, so the filioque is wrong.

    The Son and The Holy Spirit do not beget. being begotten is not the same as proceeding or being aspirated. These are different modes. The Father is the ground of being so to speak of The Son and The Holy Spirit.

    To think there is nothing mysterious about God, either means that you include in your understanding of Him that He is infinite which by definition means He is beyond full comprehension in His essence beyond what He has revealed in the Bible and you accept that as part of what is not mysterious but plain fact and common sense about Him, or,

    you need to read a lot more about Him in the Bible, including in the Psalms.

    Jesus said that no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom The Son reveals Him. Jesus is the express image and likeness of The Father if you have seen Him you have seen The Father, but given that the human is finite and Jesus adopted finitude while retaining His divinity without either humanity or divinity being changed or diminished in this union of the two natures, it follows that you have seen such as you can comprehend. In the Transfiguration, Jesus' divinity shown forth.

  6. But what makes something must be greater than what it made. an artist is greater than his art. So God must be greater than the minds He made, and while we can comprehend somewhat what He shows us of Himself, yet also He warns that none can see His face and live He told Moses.

    For starters on the Trinity, note that baptism per Jesus is in the Name (singular not plural) of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

    at Jesus' baptism, all three are evident as distinct beings, present in the same place at the same time, The Father spoke, Jesus was there just out of the water, and The Holy Spirit descended on Jesus in the form of a dove.

    Isa. 48:16 is another thing to contemplate in CONTEXT the statements being made cannot be made by the human prophet regarding himself, but are by God.

    John 1:1-3 shows that The Son is creator with The Father. While the term "God" is often limited to The Father, there is a disk shaped list to present in an argument with a Jehovah's Witness which shows all the verses in the Bible where The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are described in the same terms, that is, that names like shepherd or God or creator or whatever are applied to one, and elsewhere applied to the others. The Shema uses a word for "one" that can be viewed as having plurality in it, such as one bunch of grapes.

    While Greek philosophy was applied in some cases this was to make things easier for the educated pagans to understand. IT PLAYED NO ROLE IN CLARIFYING A DOCTRINE, IT WAS NOT USED TO CREATE THE CREED OR ANY DOCTRINE ALL THESE ARE ROOTED IN SCRIPTURE,


    The men who fought for this truth, the Trinity, against the heretics who denied the full divinity of The Son and/or of The Holy Spirit, or denied other truths, used Scripture to support it, and were steeped in Scripture. no one read or studied like most do today, chapter and verse, a bit out of context here and a bit out of context there. They read entire Gospels at one sitting, they read the prophets and torah contained in single scrolls later codexes and finally bound in codex form under one cover. you could refer to something without naming it and expect it to be recognized. Chapter and verse were created later for fast search means to locate something, but give a false impression of isolation and most heresies, or failures to understand, or thinking there is contraditictions in the Bible, come from reading it this way, or taking some one partial truth and exalting it as supreme, which of course puts it in conflict with some other partial truth treated as supreme. Think nuance.

    Start reading the Bible from Genesis 1:1 and keep going as long as you can, then stop. As soon as possible, the next day or later that day, start again. keep doing this till you get to the end of the New Testament. Don't use modern translations except maybe the NKJV. Check the Septuagint which often clarifies what makes no sense in the Masoretic. The latter was stated by rabbis as flawed when they got it, and the Masoretes merely froze the existing form from additional errors. LXX was from a Temple copy 290 years before that.

    The earliest writers after the Apsotles Irenaeus taught by Polycarp taught by the Apostle John, and Ignatius taught by the Apostle John, had no room for the denial of the divinity of any of The Three Who Are God, and complained of heresies, which in their day did this and/or denied the validity of matter and some denied the physical reality of Jesus' body, etc. etc.

    So if you accept that The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit a. exist b. are each of them God, divine, same essence, then you are a Trinitarian whether you like the term or not.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. " do believe that the Word, was begotten, and therefore had a beginning. For instance the first time Father spoke creatively 'Let there Be light' (or some other creative word of what was the first element to be created), he was Holy and alone, the one true God. "

    the phrase eternally begotten is not in Scripture, but John 1:1-3 is. And it is the basis for the idea of eternally begotten. Essentially you are holding to an Arian position, then. that there was a time when Christ was not.

    When God said "let there be light" the name used is elohim, a plural some try to explain away as royal plural of excellence. I doubt that any semitic speaking pagan would view it that way, their assortment of els would be elohim, but here this is posited as the ONE plural el (almighty or something like that) and in John is:

    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    "the same in the beginning with God."

    now, what was before the beginning? what is the beginning? the beginning was when God made heaven and earth. Okay, so what happened before that?

    Before that, there was no time, no before nothing of what we are used to thinking in terms of. Time itself is a created thing. All laws of nature were created during those six days of creation. (or if you want, at the big bang and worked over for some time after, but I prefer 6 days.)

    now prior to "the beginning" The Word already existed. and was already God as well as The Father is God.

    Isa. 57:15 "For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, " the Hebrew word is "ad" "perpetuity." inhabiting perpetuity sounds like "eternity" is a good translation, and how do you inhabit perpetuity unless it is something beyond normal concepts of time and space? shakan to abide in.
    one could say as one translation says, lives forever, but obviously God already existed before "the beginning." elsewhere He says there was none before Him and none will come after like to take His place. So He always existed, and since The Word the Son existed with Him already at the beginning, The Word must also be eternal, but since He is called the Son and The Father is called The Father, He must have been begotten by The Father, yet this happened before the beginning so happened in eternity outside of time, so is itself without beginning or ending.

    John 1:3 "ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE." the Him at issue is the Word, and look at Colossians 1:16

    "For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,....all things were created by Him, AND FOR HIM." The Him is Who? The Father? no, because the preceding verses show this is The Son.

    So God The Father was NOT alone when He said, "Let there be light," and the same Genesis section says that The Holy Spirit brooded on the waters.

    To be baptized in the name of Jesus is evidently a shorthand for the Trinitarian formula, because in Jesus you have The Father and The Holy Spirit. So when it came to actual baptism, it would have been all Three named, and one was baptized into Jesus' death and resurrection.

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. the key arian position is that, regarding Christ "there was a time when He was not." there were more than one kind of arians after a while such as eunomians, I never was too interested in the fine details, but that being the case you couldn't say 'I hold the Arian position in all things' because there are variations of Arianism.

    ON THIS ISSUE you ARE expressing the Arian position.

    some forms denied Jesus' divinity, others allowed some degree of divinity but held Him essentially to be a creation of God like some kind of super high angel. The JWs are in the former category.

    Now, The Word and The Holy Spirit have origin, The Father does not, but they always were produced by The Father always were with Him, always begotten and spirating, so are coeternal.

    Arianism denies this, and subsequent variations to the priest Arius' ideas are more extreme than that.

    Isa 57:15 speaks of Him dwelling in eternity. THAT is the point in bringing this verse up. I think that should be obvious, maybe you need to read more.

    Now "was" is obviously related to "in the beginning" which Genesis says was when God created the heavens and the earth.

    as to eons past, you are assuming time (like eons) existed before creation. But time itself is a created thing. so it didn't.

    since the Word was in the beginning (when creation started) ALREADY WITH GOD then He must have always been so, outside of and before time.

    There was never a time when Christ was not.

    some have argued the creation must be eternal also in the sense of without beginning because then how could God be Creator before there was a creation? well, a judge is a judge even if he never hears a case. God is the only one who COULD create, therefore can always be said to be Creator even before there was a creation, because that is part of His nature and ability. an artist paints because he is an artist, he doesn't become an artist by painting (well, that's a bad analogy, lets say a good artist, bear in mind no analogy between God and any creature can be exact).

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

  12. I think the angels pre existed the universe somewhere in psalms it mentions the sons of God singing for you when God made things.

    begotten would imply there was a period before one was begotten, but one could argue 2 things
    a. that The Word always existed in The Father so even before He was pushed forward out so to speak, there was still never a time when He was not,

    because The Word existed always in the Father even before "spoken" out and likewise The Holy Spirit.

    b. the view I usually have is that the begetting is continually going on (think continual speaking if that helps) and the spiration of The Holy Spirit is continually going on and always was.

    at the risk of being a bit weird, perhaps a yeast which reproduces by budding though some buds never break fully off might help as a concept.
    there is a better picture of something I had in mind than this. I am afraid I have a sci fi shaped mind to some extent.

  13. Col. 1:15-17 is about Jesus Christ the Word, notice preceding verses,

    "the beginning" first appears in Genesis "in the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth" so since by through and for The Word without Whom nothing was made that was made, everything was made in the beginning, The Word was already with God before anything was made.

    Of course it was all at the command of God The Father yet through and with The Father by and for The Son and The Holy Spirit seems to play some role especially in life related situations like brooding over the waters.

    So the Word was already with The Father when, in the beginning of the universe, God made the heavens and the earth.

    now whether He was with the Father being still in Him and not spoken out till just before everything was created, or was always beside Him as spoken ongoingly is another matter.

  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

  15. The Trinitarian idea, based on all that could be found in Scripture when you read through it a lot, is that they are equal in nature (same divine essence) but there is a rank order difference. They are however united by love not fear.

    I suppose as long as you consider that The Son while in The Father (bear in mind that The Word is a Person also, and that The Father was able to speak from heaven to Him or about Him at His baptism, so His speech is not limited to The Son or Word speaking what The Father thinks), still existed, and did so always, that you might not be saying that there was a time when He was not. like The Father was pregnant from before forever and eventually decided to pop The Word out.

    1. don't get me wrong, I am not into the "goddess" idea. God is actually beyond any kind of gender, not being a sexually reproducing species, He is conveniently considered male for various reasons. On this line of thought perhaps He decided to unpack the internal elements then start creating first angels then the physical universe.

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. firstly, it sounds like you are drawing on Hislop who is unreliable yes triads of "gods existed" and in Ireland St. Patrick had to explain the difference between Trinitarian monotheism and tritheism finally used a shamrock, one leaf (defined as what comes off the stem), three parts.

    Any reference to "the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit" is effectively Trinitarian, since these are all objects of worship yet there is one God. Sometimes "God" is reserved for The Father, and "Lord" for Jesus but all three are worshipped. you don't worship anything but God and whatever anyone worships is ipso facto their god whether it is the right one or not.

    There is a degree of unity between The Father, Son and Holy Spirit that makes them more one than three, but enough distinctness to make them three and not a simple one. If you read big chunks of Scripture, AND DON'T LIMIT YOURSELF TO WHAT THE POINT OF SOME STATEMENT WAS, BUT LOOK AT THE INFORMATION REVEALED IN MAKING THAT POINT, you will get it.

    The true faith was known before paganism existed, you will note YHWH was being called on a few generations after Creation. paganism would have retained some truths which it had step by step warped in the process of removing the faith in YHWH and shifting to nature, heroes, stars, etc.

    The Copeland etc. notion of us being little gods, or capable of becoming such by exercise and development (as opposed to the theosis notion of becoming gods by grace but not nature, recoving the damaged image and likeness of God), this is not based on Romans 8:29 or anything else taken in context.

    being conformed the image of His Son is not making one the same substance or essence as. If I shape some lump of clay to conform it to the photograph of someone, I have not made the clay sculpture be that person or be of its same substance. The "HE" that is the firstborn among many brethren is of course Jesus, Who is consubstantial with us in His humanity but consubstantial with The Father in His divinity, and we do not have the substance of divinity but can connect with it participate in the divne nature as PEter puts it somewhere in one of his letters near the end.

  18. I forgot one thing, are you implying in that quote, that Romans was not written by Paul in the middle of the first century, but was a product of the fourth century?

  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

  20. firstly, instead of getting upset at "labeling" look to see if the label fits. "arian" varies but all include the position that "there was a time when [Christ] was not." now IF you hold that Christ The Word came into existence at some time after The Father had existed since forever, instead of being coeternal with Him, THEN you fit the arian category, but AS LONG AS you consider The Word to be the SAME SUBSTANCE as the Father and equally divine with Him, and do not disparage The Word's status as divine, then you are only minimally Arian.

    IF HOWEVER you consider that The Word though not always distinguishable from The Father by being (for lack of a better concept) outside of Him having been begotten or birthed by Him at that point, but nonetheless always existed as a distinct being (like an embryo is distinct from the mother) while inside The Father and not yet birthed out, then you are not Arian at all, because you view Him as coeternal with The Father.

    So it is up to you to pick the label.

    It is not a matter of reading the word to prove a point but to determine the point's validity. so if in Isaiah "the point" of a verse is God's willingness to be with the humble, that doesn't change the fact that in describing Himself and His glory before stating He will be with the humble, God says that He dwells in eternity or in perpetuity which is pretty much the same thing.

    " So I beg to differ, the true faith initiated by God with the first shedding of Blood of animal to cloth Adam and Eve's sin, come only AFTER the deceptive doctrine."

    I said "few generations after Creation" which obviously means a few generations after Adam and after the sin. I don't see why you thought I meant what you are arguing about. But it is likely that Adam and Eve knew something about God Who after all walked with them in the garden in the cool of the evening and told them things likely?

    "The Copeland etc. notion of us being little gods, IS IN FACT based on Romans 8:29 and other texts taken out of context. I came out of the Latter Rain/Manifest Sons of God/Jesus Only and of this point I am very certain."

    I didn't say otherwise did I? "is not based on Romans 8:29 or anything else taken in context."

    it was taken out of context as you noted. Also the verse itself without context has to be twisted to make us be "gods." Similarity is not identity. a likeness is not the original. it does not consist of the same substance as the original (except in Jesus' case, where His divinity is the same substance as The Father's except for His human substance not being that of The Father's but of us.)

    now, you confuse me. "There is no distinction in the unity of Father God and his son as he made it clear that he and his father are one."

    yet you draw a distinction between them, if I understand you right. So if you believe all Three are Gods or ONE God in three persons, how are you not a Trinitarian?
    The so called traditions or theories of men on this point were drawn from Scripture, the only way to reconcile apparent conflicts.

    Unless of course you are trying to say that there is One God Who has functions like Word and Spirit, but not three persons, and that He manifests alternately as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. in that case you fit the modalist category.
    If so, note that The Father spoke, The Son was coming out of the water of baptism, and The Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove on The Son, so all three are clearly present as distinct beings at the same time.

    John 1:1-3 distinguishes the Word from God and also calls The Word "God." all things were made by for and through the Word as Colossians says and as John says. Genesis chapter 1 points to all Three being involved in the creation, but here in the Gospel and Epistles an emphasis is thrown on The Word to emphasize His divinity because He is Creator as is The Father Who created through Him. I think we are on the same page here?

    1. oh, by the way, congratulations and thanks be to God that you got out of that Latter Rain and Prosperity Word of Faith nonsense.

  21. regarding Babylon, and the surrounding Mesopotamian cities, they had a lot more than merely three "gods" and so did Egypt. at various times some became prominent.

  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

  23. "Yet I do believe as I stated earlier, they proceeded out of God the Father, having a beginning,"

    If you consider that The Word had a beginning, BEFORE WHICH IT DID NOT EXIST, then you are by definition arian. period.
    that's like saying if you are wearing shoes you are shod. its just a fact. If you were born in the USA you are American.


    beginning as in came into existence is not the same as origin, if one originates from something that is the larger lump you are a part of for instance the foot originates in embryonic development from the rest of the developing embryo, but was always there in the DNA code.

    " but it is not for man to deduce the nature of these things and then for God to endorse."

    no one is trying to do that, and the issue is not "authority" of this or that human group, but what The Bible says.

    As for Isa. 9:6 notice "the mighty God" and "the everlasting Father" are two of the things that The Word The Son is, yet He is not The Father as He says, the Father is greater than I, but also I and the Father are one, or more likely identical in kind and behavior. Cleary separate beings.

    So how can He be The Everlasting Father? Jesus is sometimes called "the Father of the age to come" based on one LXX translation actually there are about three ways to render that so its rather confusing.

    again, you need to deal with ALL the verses on a subject not just cherry pick them, put them ALL together. that is how people either find bible contradicting itself, OR they realize there is picture that is not self contradictory but includes these all. And that is how the Trinity doctrine came to be spelled out.

  24. this might help


  26. I hadn't looked into this for a long time. you are not Arian but more semi Arian, BUT you are closer to Orthodoxy than any of these if you believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally divine and of SAME essence and the only issue with you is time of beginning.

  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

  28. we could discuss it here or at that page.

    as for man's best knowledge and philosophy, that isn't the basis for the Trinity. The basis is the biblical picture of the divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. unlike the arians you don't denigrate that, only raise issues of the second Two not having always existed like the first One.

    In that you are quite unique. apparently you view them all as same substance, while the typical arian even semi arian viewed the second Two as some kind of hybrid or creation out of nothing like everything else is.

    what do you think of my pregnancy analogy?

  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

  30. no insemination needed if you think parthenogenesis and/or yeast like budding.

    The Word isn't just something The Father spoke, because with The Word incarnate and coming out of the River Jordan, The Father still spoke from heaven saying "this is My beloved Son" so The Word and the typical spoken words of The Father are distinct. The Word is the personal embodiment of the (for lack of a better term) nature of The Father's speech.

    "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."
    Hebrews 7.3

    THIS WAS SAID ABOUT MELCHISEDEC, who may have in fact had parents etc., but because nothing of the sort is said about him become a type of the eternality of The Word, The Son.

    The context is Jesus' High Priesthood after the order (manner) of Melchisedec. This is based on Ps. 110:4
    context is
    "1{A Psalm of David.} The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

    2The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

    3Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

    4The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

    5The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath."

    Notice this is the Psalm that says,

    6He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.

    7He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head."

    Note this is the psalm that says "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

    David says, "YHWH said to my Lord...."
    Jesus quotes this "44The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

    45If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? " Matt. 22:44, 45

    context of Jesus quoting the Psalm 110
    41While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 43He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

    44The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

    45If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? 46And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions."

    This connection by Jesus to this Psalm, and Hebrews pointing to the apparent eternality (without beginning without end) of Melchisedec being a typological descriptor of Jesus The Word Incarnate, shows that The Word always was, coeternal with The Father, originates from the Father, but without a time when He was not.

  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. It does settle the issue of The Word being also without beginning that is, although He has His origin in the Father, there was never a time He didn't exist, "time" in this sense meaning a sequence. Even if He was in the Father like in a womb until a certain "time" He still existed. And He is referred to in the NT as "in the bosom of the Father."

      IF you admit that The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit are of the same essence which is not the essence of creatures, then you are effectively Trinitarian. the arian categories all compromised the divinity of the Son and/or of The Holy Spirit.

      There are a lot of traditions of men cropped up in the past centuries, that pretend to be fighting traditions of men but in fact are themselves human creations and not biblical exact, or biblically based. anti Trinitarianism is one of these.

      The Trinity is in Scripture, not the word but the CONCEPT, the CONTENT OF WHAT THE WORD MEANS. The Father, The Son Who became Incarnate, died for our sins and came back physically and permanently to life, and The Holy Spirit. This is what the Trinity IS. this is what IT REFERS TO.

  33. Dan, how can you view the Trinity as contrived, when you admit that Father Son and Holy Spirit are all of the same divine substance and each are God? even if you figure The Father was once alone with no one with Him, you are essentially on the same page with the Trinitarians.

    What the Jews thought doesn't matter. the OT gives hints, such as Micah 5:4 saying that the Messiah's goings forth have been "from the beginning."

    one bunch of grapes is still ONE cluster, more united than the typical pagan pantheon.

  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

  35. obviously the beginning of the universe. which includes all its physical laws and time itself. "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." God was BEFORE that or couldn't have done this in the beginning, so was before the beginning. The beginning of the creation.

  36. This comment has been removed by the author.

  37. so you think God is limited to speaking through The Word Who is the embodiment (in a bodiless way before the Incarnation) of God's word? What about the Baptism of Christ? Remember that God The Father spoke, from heaven not out of Jesus' mouth, when Jesus came up out of the water, and while The Holy Spirit in the form of a dove landed on Jesus?

    the Word is not the beginning of OUR existence, He made us to exist, but we are not the same essence as He is, being creatures not the Creator.

  38. John 1:1,2 "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and Word was God.

    The same was in the beginning with God."
    since God existed before "the beginning," obviously the Word was with God already, before "the beginning."

  39. This comment has been removed by the author.

  40. preexistence of everything - I hope you don't mean everything pre existed its existence. I don't have any trouble comprehending God pre existing everything. But the Word always existed also, after all how could God speak it out if it wasn't in Him already?

    But The Father could still speak while The Word was in the world could He not? twice He spoke audibly to bystanders with Jesus present and not speaking at the moment.

    Though the term "God" is often reserved to The Father, Jesus also is GOD, so says John's Gospel. So Jesus says when He said "Before Abraham was, I AM."

    If The Word came to be outside the Father at some point before creation began (before the beginning) He still preexisted that point, because He was in The Father already.

    We are talking about events before time. this is not something the finite mind can comprehend.

    What is the difficulty in seeing that since Jesus, and The Father, and The Holy Spirit are all YH or I AM or The Existing One, yet distinct persons, that they must, by virtue of being parts of the Holy Trinity and having the same essence as The Father be coeternal with The Father? How can The Father have ever not had The Word in Him, even if He had not yet begotten Him forth, and how could He not have His Holy Spirit in Him, even if He had not yet breathed Him forth (not same as begetting)? If an eternally pregnant Father will help as a concept, before these were begotten forth and breathed forth, they nonetheless existed eternally with and in The Father.

  41. This comment has been removed by the author.

  42. "The bible does not say that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are of the same substance. (No one has defined 'substance'?)
    The Bible does not sat that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are 3 persons, of a Godhead.
    The Bible does say that God is a Spirit.
    The Bible also says that before the incarnation of Jesus, he was the Word. The Son of God (physical) did not precede the 'Word' The Word did not precede God. "

    it says all these things. substance, essence how can you read the Bible through every year in less than a year if I recall right and you don't see this? are you putting the narrowest construction possible on every word?

    already you talk about what happened before time began, which is absurd.

    a person is not automatically finite, it is a conscious being who is distinct as individual from others whether it is aware of itself or not.

    The Father spoke, the Son was coming out of the water of Jordan, The Holy Spirit descended as a dove THREE PERSONS

    The Word was with God and the Word was God the same was in the beginning with God - "God" obviously involved a divine essence or nature, something no creature has. The Father is God, the Son is God, The Holy Spirit is God, but they are distinguishable one from another.

    yes the incarnation physicality did not precede the Word Who is also God The Son before He was son of Mary He was already Son of God.

    YHWH is ONE God, yet YHWH is three so there is one Godhead consisting of three Persons, with The Father as basis/origin of the other Two.

    you are looking for explicit statements of this kind that can only be put together to begin to understand this mystery, and which could only be hinted at in OT or risk giving excuses for polytheism, which is a whole other thing.

    you seem to reject the descriptions that come from putting all the Scriptures together, yet you believe pretty much what they say. are you looking for a formulaic statement in the Bible? its like a jigsaw puzzle.

  43. This comment has been removed by the author.

  44. its not a matter of God conforming to us and our thinking, but our thinking conforming to God. that is the purpose of the formula as you call it. the formula is the result of putting together all the Bible has to say about God.

  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

  46. what I don't understand is how you can admit The Father The Son and The Holy Spirit are distinct and are all equally divine, and not consider yourself a Trinitarian of some sort? I think you are so used to some things being denounced as made up, man made, traditions of men, etc., that the absence of some specific short hand term in the Bible is occasion to reject it even if the concepts the term refers to are recognized by you as biblical.

  47. This comment has been removed by the author.

  48. origen was not a church father but an influential writer esteemed by some church fathers, which creates some minor problems. Origen in seeking hidden meanings in Scripture and applying philosophical thinking more than Biblical and catching a dose of Gnosticism that stayed mostly subclinical, its most extreme forms (Docetism and valentian etc. ism) being restricted by church doctrine founded on Scripture.

    the anathemas against him are at and the rejection of these notions are precisely because they don't fit Scripture though Scripture isn't cite it is taken for granted by the bishops there steeped in Scripture.

    Historically, the fathers used philosophy where it was Christianity compatible in order to make Christianity more respectable to the educated, but often redefined some terms and concepts. their use of philosophy was subordinated to Scripture and teachings from their childhood received from those who studied and copied Scripture and were taught by likewise back to the Apostles, who were still then more recent than now.

    Pagan philosophy had more to do with challenges to the Trinity (whether in the form of denying Christ's divinity or His humanity or other things) in other words, with heresy, than it did with formulating doctrine. Modern anti RC writers have way overemphasized philosophy's role in the church.

    Some of those at the Nicea I council objected to the term homoousios of same substance (as The Father) precisely because it is not a term in Scipture, though they agreed with the concept, but accepted it as the only phrasing that would rule out arian word games and subterfuges

    Obviously these men saw something in Scripture you are missing.

    If The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father, then He is same substance as The Father like Jesus the Word is, so He is also God.

  49. This comment has been removed by the author.

  50. okay. first, Jesus said that not even He but only The Father knew when Jesus was to come back. so some things The
    Father reserves to Himself. There is apparently a rank order in the Trinity, but it is more loving than dominant.

    They are equal in most ways. They are of the same divine essence, "consubstantial" "of same substance" or essence, something no creature of any kind shares with them.

    They are one God, so in some sense never fully separated. Perhaps this is because they are equally infinite. Jesus being permanently human is finite in His humanity, but infinite in His divinity.

    Begetting and proceeding are not the same thing. As St. Photios the Great put it, and I think some others did also, they are distinguishable by certain functions and capabilities. The Father both begets and spirates, while neither The Son nor The Holy Spirit does either of these (as distinct from begetting us into new life by an adoption). This is the problem created by the filioque, that RC now defends by saying it doesn't mean double procession, but it did mean that originally. St. Augustine garbled things when he defined The Holy Spirit as the love between The Father and The Son, reducing Him to a function or energy or attitude.

    Jesus describes The Holy Spirit as doing things, in terms that point to Him being conscious with will. Paul refers to Him as distributing gifts as HE wills, so this is a person like The Other Two.

    I think St. Cyril of Alexandria said something like inquiring too much into the relationship between members of the Trinity will drive you mad.

    God has revealed some things to us, for us and our children to keep, and other things He has kept to Himself, Moses said. Proverbs also says it is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of kings to find it out or similar words. So some things can be deduced sort of from what is revealed.

    The earliest writers, themselves the product of the teaching of the church and in at least two cases themselves taught by Apostles, shows that the worship of The Trinity goes back to earliest times.

    The Father did not cease to be a spirit or lose something of Himself when He breathed out The Holy Spirit, the same regarding The Son the Word, The Father did not become wordless. So these PErsons in some way embody these things about The Father, yet He is not reduced by having begotten and spirated these.

    There is a great mystery here, remember our minds are finite but God is infinite and we cannot comprehend everything. (we can't even comprehend that much about the known universe, which isn't entirely known anyway. how much less can we expect to understand its Creator?)

    Jesus said it is the will of The Father that The Son be honored even as HE The Father is honored, so obviously we are talking divinity of the Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father so is divine also.

    an angel is not divine. they are called sons of God even as Adam is, because they are direct creations (as distinct from things created by God out of other things or producing things at His order as in some phases of creation in Genesis 1).

    perichoresis is a term developed in the west I think, to describe that where one is all of them are.

    this is of necessity a bit disjointed but then you might think of God as being like a multifaceted jewel, and you only can see part of it.

    "The early Christian writer, Tertullian, coined the word "Trinity" around the year A.D. 200. Although he coined a new word, Tertullian introduced no new teachings about the Trinity. Rather, he explained and defended what the entire church had believed from the time of the apostles up through his day. "

    "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: " John 14:11 even while on earth, Jesus was not separated from The Father in an absolute sense but their unity was maintained. does better job than I can

  51. This comment has been removed by the author.

  52. I will try to answer in a way you can understand but I DID answer it. obviously you are not following the biblical information to its logical conclusion, without which you have apparent self contradictions throughout The Bible, unless you take the Trinitarian monotheist approach.

    "Are all entities in your trinity equal?"

    yes and no. they have the same essence like all humans are of the same essence. They are all one God since YHWH is One God, yet they are distinct the second Two are rooted in the first One, no full separation. (think a yeast budding but the buds not breaking loose and not capable of budding more themselves.) So there is ONE GOD.

    Jesus said "before Abraham was I AM" which is the meaning basically of the name YHWH, and the Jews recognized this, and His claiming God as His personal Father, as making Himself out to be God, because in the first case, He claimed to be YHWH and to have existed before Abraham did (way before but that's another matter), and in the second case like begets like.

    When so accused, Jesus did NOT say, "you misunderstood Me, I didn't meant it like that." He also said that it was the will of The Father that all honor the Son the same as they do The Father, yet YHWH has made it clear He will not share His honor with another. Contradiction? or consubstantiality without full separation. (eternally pregnant Father, but the unity of the Son and Holy Spirit with The Father YHWH is much more exteme than that of mother and child, the child being a totally separate temporarily parasitic being from the mother, and at conception not even attached.

    There is a kind of order of rank, The Father takes priority, but they are basically equal.

    "Do they all contain the same power?"


    "Do they all contain the same knowledge?"

    mostly. The Father reserves to Himself at least the knowledge of when The Son will be sent back. Perhaps there is more He reserves to Himself.

    Some argue that Jesus spoke about only the Father knowing the Second Coming timing from the standpoint of being Incarnate, but He didn't become discarnate after The Resurrection.

    "Can the clay pot give an account of the life and times of the potter?"

    no, except insofar as the potter has revealed specifics.
    some specifics have been revealed, some contradict each other, some resolve the contradiction.

  53. But since you ask this last question, how can you argue that God is not Trinity, any more than, on the basis of the implication of that question, that God is Trinity?

    God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. Is He going to suddenly change His tune and allow worship of His Son, unless there is some degree of unity that is beyond that of polytheist "gods"? Thomas addressed Jesus as "my Lord and my God," something reserved only to YHWH in Psalms. Jesus did not rebuke him or any who worshipped Him, but when John overwhelmed fell at an angel's feet the angel said to not do that, for he was only a fellow servant with John.

    Copeland's statement cannot be deduced, because it presupposes an actual or possible consubstantiality of creature with creator which is not possible. This sort of thing is totally against theism in general. Even the pagan Greco Romans drew a distinction between "gods" and men that they considered unbridgeable except in the case of hybrid "heroes," showing they had some sense of the total distinction between man and deity (whatever errors they entertained about the latter).

    you question about the clay pot is pretty much what St. Cyril was driving at.

    now, if I understand you correctly, you consider all Three to be equally divine, by nature, only that the second Two came into existence at some point after the First One had been around since before forever. But they will exist forever.

    Now, in that you (if I understand you correctly) do not deny or limit Jesus' divinity, that puts you closer to orthodox than to Arianism.

    "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

    okay, what happened before the beginning? nothing. God just IS, self existent derived from nothing and no one. The Second Two are derived from The First One but also as He does have life in themselves.

    "They are equal in most ways. They are of the same divine essence, "consubstantial" "of same substance" or essence, something no creature of any kind shares with them."

    There is no biblical basis for this statement is is conjecture."

    to be able to say this, you clearly aren't reading the Bible carefully. it is exactly what everything in it about God and Jesus and The Holy Spirit adds up to. It is not conjecture.

    If they are not the same essence, then it is not proper to worship any but the first One. if they are not the same essence, then The Word was not God after all, but a created secondary being.

    "in the beginning was the Word, and The Word was with God and The Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God."

    this is exactly the biblical basis for what you say there is no biblical basis for.

    Does God contradict Himself? Does God change and say okay worship a creature alongside of Me?

    When Jesus said "I AM" He claimed the name of YHWH. When He accepted Thomas' worship of Him as "my Lord and my God" He claimed Godhood by not repudiating this address.

  54. This comment has been removed by the author.

  55. Its not a matter of my church doctrine. I don't follow a tradition and interpret the bible in terms of it, but rather, I chose the Eastern Orthodox tradition because it fits the bible.

    I have already explained the Trinity, but here is a page that gives Scripture to support all the points in the Nicene Creed.

  56. the Athanasian creed has a filioque like element, and otherwise is correct it is too cumbersome to memorize and recite but was anyway in the west. It is detailing what the Nicene Creed summarizes, spelling out what the Nicene Creed implicitly includes in its meaning to deal with clever naysayers and those who are confused. The Nicene creed is the one in use mostly in the churches I attended and in EO. But yes, the presentation of the Trinity aside from the Holy Spirit being from the Father and the Son "The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. "

  57. This comment has been removed by the author.

  58. That is what the Athanasian Creed state, whether you like it or not.

    We have also discussed ad nauseam that to be begotten only implies (the writer implies the reader infers) an origin, not necessarily a beginning.

    I agree they are not co equal exactly among each other, clearly The Son came to do The Father's will, they all work together they all hinge on the Father Who is for lack of a better term their ground of being.

    however, compared to us they are co equal, and in the sense that they are same essence they are co equal, they are equally divine, just like all humans from the king to the serf are same essence and equally human, though because of the unity of the Persons of The Holy Trinity since they are all Three infinite where one of them is there is all of them.

    being begotten may imply a beginning, but you are applying to the uncreated things that apply to the created, you are applying to the eternal which is outside of time things that apply to the temporal, and laws of nature that themselves did not exist until created.

    Anyway, co eternality is what all the creeds state or imply, and comes from the Bible references of from the beginning, etc. at the beginning of everything including time and all natural laws, at the beginning of the existence of the material that blew up in the Big Bang if you go by that theory, or in the beginning of the existence of some plasma ether whatnot God made everything out of, whatever, all Three of the Holy Trinity already existed.

    Before that we cannot speculate.

  59. This comment has been removed by the author.

  60. to make myself clearer, if the Son was already present at the beginning, then He was present before the beginning, and therefore in eternity past.

  61. This comment has been removed by the author.

  62. This comment has been removed by the author.

  63. dan you are thinking in tight categories and assuming everyone else myself included does also. I don't believe the creed because of some tradition, but because it fits Scripture, to which itself appeals.

    I have already linked to a site that shows Scripture support for all points of the Creed. did you read that?

    "It does not say in scripture that Jesus or even the Word was from all eternity past. If it would have the word beginning would not have been used as eternity past has no beginning."

    you are shifting ground. first you seem to argue that if the Word was there in the beginning then He wasn't there before that, now you argue that since they don't say it the way you want to see it the Bible doesn't say it.

    TO BE THERE IN THE BEGINNING (the beginning comes AFTER all eternity past, the beginning of our time our universe, etc.) ONE HAS TO BE THERE BEFORE THE BEGINNING. and that is eternity past.

    you seem to be arguing from a preset of no way can you accept the Trinity, yet you accept all points of its doctrine, the divinity and personality of all three of The Trinity you only waffle on the co eternality.

    I think you got heavy duty anti RC baggage lurking somewhere in your subconscious maybe?

    The Bible does support the Trinity, you just won't face it.

    and I find it odd that you say "Jesus or even the Word" are you drawing a distinction between these? there is none. JEsus is merely the name given the Word made flesh. one person, two natures divine and human.

  64. This comment has been removed by the author.

  65. "Please do not attribute any RC bias to me without asking? I would do the same for you."

    What did I say that remotely resembled that? you are so afraid of RC that anything similar to their teaching you reject out of hand regardless of Biblical evidence or the testimony of way pre Constantine writers from the early Church, not to mention the fact that the characteristic deviations of RC don't begin to appear until several centuries after Constantine and only in the west and north Africa which spawned a lot of trouble.

    I do not say Jesus' flesh preexisted the incarnation only that it is the same PERSON pre incarnate or incarnate.

    "You agree with the creed but you do not agree the trinity is co-equal? Co-equality is the underpinning of this doctrine itself."

    of course I agree they are co equal, but that is of their essence, the RC and original EO (which made the Creed, RC had only a representative or two there) hold co equal in that sense but that the Second Two are based in/originate from the First One and there is obviously some kind of rank however mild within them. monarchy in heaven being reflected in monarchy on earth, roles in heaven being reflected in social and political roles on earth, has been an argument used all along regarding monarchy and social work stratification being legitimate.

    "There is no place in the Word, Old and New that says that the Holy Spirit is to be worshiped. Nor is it said that the Holy Spirit was glorified, only Jesus."

    If The Holy Spirit is divine He is worthy of worship. However He points to The Son so is not properly the object of nearly as much attention as The Father and The Son.

    being glorified here refers to being given glory "we glorify you" sort of thing, not about Jesus being glorified by God with the glory He had with The Father "before the world was." John 17:5.

    " The Holy Spirit did not speak by the prophets but the prophets spoke by the Holy Spirit. There is a difference. "

    The prophets spoke "by" the Holy Spirit in that they spoke as told and at His incentive. The Holy Spirit spoke "by" the prophets in that He used them as human messengers instead of using angels or speaking audibly from Heaven.

    Prophecy doesn't come by private interpretation (figuring things out and saying "God told me" when all you did was figure something out and worse yet maybe got it wrong) nor by human choice and determination using The Holy Spirit like some power you can tap and direct to do so. That is charismatic error.

    But speaking "by" the Holy Spirit assuming that phrase is in the Bible and a quick search with bible added doesn't show anything but being led by The Holy Spirit, would involve speaking His words and in His power and wisdom and fearless because of that. empowered to address as prophet people the prophet might be scared of. Or, not prophecy but empowered by The Holy Spirit to do ministry, to speak boldly.

    "*** Father God was preexistent and Holy himself prior to the beginning."

    of course, BUT, since in the beginning The Word was already with God and was also God, John's Gospel first few verses, obviously the Word existed before the beginning, with The Father. and how can The Father not have had His SPirit as well? Genesis shows The Holy Spirit brooding on the waters, so He was there at the beginning AND NO MENTION OF THE SON OR THE HOLY SPIRIT BEING CREATED. "in the beginning" they were already there. They are first mentioned after those words, but as if a foregone conclusion taken for granted they were already there because it does not say that God created The Holy Spirit and then He brooded on the waters.

    If God breathed forth His Holy Spirit then His Holy Spirit was already existing but inside Him in order to be breathed out.

    Same logic regarding The Son. They all co eternally existed, even there was some unpacking done just before the beginning.

  66. " I believe the Holy Spirit of God is not the Father or any equal to the Father, but proceeded from the Father by his WORD."

    and where did you get the latter idea from? this is RC filioque That The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father AND THe SON filioque in Latin. This idea was kept in the west by the REformers who didn't access much from Orthodoxy. And was accepted unquestioned along with human traditions the REformers made and others made later like altar calls.

    But Jesus, in the promise of the Comforter three times has the chance to say this, and doesn't. He said The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, full stop.

    He said He would send them The Holy Spirit FROM THE FATHER. The Son is the connection to The Holy Spirit for the Church, the supplier of Him, but The Holy Spirit also operates in the world convicting of sin and judgement Jesus says.

  67. This comment has been removed by the author.

  68. This comment has been removed by the author.

  69. "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I WILL SEND HIM UNTO YOU. John 16:7"

    read ALL of it not just one part you miss things. He says He will send Him FROM THE FATHER and that He PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER.

    the filioque (despite modern RC denials) is not about action in time but origin in eternity. The Son is begotten from The Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father.

    read the Bible like any other book, chapter after chapter several chapters at a time. check back for detail when things get complicated.

  70. the very verses from John you quote are the reason I believe The Word always existed with The Father.

    If He is already there in the beginning (was not came into existence) then He was ALREADY THERE WHEN THE BEGINNING BEGAN, therefore HE WAS THERE BEFORE THE BEGINNING and whatever is before the beginning is in eternity outside of time.