God in Three Persons

sanctus

The Padre
Oct 27, 2006
4,558
48
48
Ontario
www.poetrypoem.com
The early Christians were quick to spot new heresies. In the third century, Sabellius, a Libyan priest who was staying at Rome, invented a new one. He claimed there is only one person in the Godhead, so that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one person with different "offices," rather than three persons who are one being in the Godhead, as the orthodox position holds.

Of course, people immediately recognized that Sabellius’s teaching contradicted the historic faith of the Church, and he was quickly excommunicated. His heresy became known as Sabellianism, Modalism, and Patripassianism. It was called Sabellianism after its founder, Modalism after the three modes or roles which it claimed the one person of the Trinity occupied, and Patripassianism after its implication that the person of the Father (Pater-) suffered (-passion) on the cross when Jesus died.

Because Modalism asserts that there is only one person in the Godhead, it makes nonsense of passages which show Jesus talking to his Father (e.g., John 17), or declaring he is going to be with the Father (John 14:12, 28, 16:10) One role of a person cannot go to be with another role of that person, or say that the two of them will send the Holy Spirit while they remain in heaven (John 14:16-17, 26, 15:26, 16:13–15; Acts 2:32–33).

Modalism quickly died out; it was too contrary to the ancient Christian faith to survive for long. Unfortunately, it was reintroduced in the early twentieth century in the new Pentecostal movement. In its new form, Modalism is often referred to as Jesus Only theology since it claims that Jesus is the only person in the Godhead and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are merely names, modes, or roles of Jesus. Today the United Pentecostal Church, as well as numerous smaller groups which call themselves "apostolic churches," teach the Jesus Only doctrine. Through the Word Faith movement, it has begun to infect traditionally Trinitarian Pentecostalism. Ironically, Trinity Broadcasting Network, operated by Word Faith preacher Paul Crouch, has given a television voice to many of these Jesus Only preachers (who are, of course, militantly anti-Trinitarian).

In the quotes that follow, the Fathers’ forceful rejection of Modalism is shown not only when they condemn it by name, but also by passages in which they speak of one person of the Trinity being with another, being sent from another, or speaking to another.



The Letter of Barnabas


"And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,’ understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men" (Letter of Barnabas 5 [A.D. 74] emphasis added).



Hermas


"The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father’s adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is ancient" (The Shepherd 12 [A.D. 80]).



Ignatius of Antioch


"Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. . . . Jesus Christ . . . came forth from one Father and is with and has gone to one [Father]. . . . [T]here is one God, who has manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased him that sent him" (Letter to the Magnesians 6–8 [A.D. 110] emphasis added).



Justin Martyr


"God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness.’ . . . I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with someone numerically distinct from himself and also a rational being. . . . But this offspring who was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with him" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 62 [A.D. 155]).



Polycarp of Smyrna


"I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 [A.D. 155] emphasis added).



Mathetes


"[The Father] sent the Word that he might be manifested to the world. . . . This is he who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old. . . . This is he who, being from everlasting, is today called the Son" (Letter to Diognetus 11 [A.D. 160] emphasis added).



Irenaeus


"It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor anyone else. . . . For God did not stand in need of these in order to accomplish what he had himself determined with himself beforehand should be done, as if he did not possess his own hands. For with him [the Father] were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying, ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness’ [Gen. 1:26]" (Against Heresies 4:20:1 [A.D. 189] emphasis added).



Tertullian


"While keeping to this demurrer always, there must, nevertheless, be place for reviewing for the sake of the instruction and protection of various persons. Otherwise it might seem that each perverse opinion is not examined but simply prejudged and condemned. This is especially so in the case of the present heresy [Sabellianism], which considers itself to have the pure truth when it supposes that one cannot believe in the one only God in any way other than by saying that Father, Son, and Spirit are the selfsame person. As if one were not all . . . through the unity of substance" (Against Praxeas 2:3–4 [A.D. 216]).

"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe, now, that I say the Father is other [distinct], and the Son is other, and the Spirit is other.
. . . I say this, however, out of necessity, since they contend that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are the selfsame person" (ibid. 9:1).



Hippolytus


"Thus, after the death of Zephyrinus, supposing that he had obtained [the position] after which he so eagerly pursued, he [Pope Callistus] excommunicated Sabellius, as not entertaining orthodox opinions" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:7 [A.D. 228]).



Novatian


"[W]ho does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he reads that it was said by the Father, consequently to the Son, ‘Let us make man in our image and our likeness’ [Gen. 1:26]? Or when he reads [as having been said] to Christ: ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten you. Ask of me, and I will give you the heathens for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for your possession’ [Ps. 2:7–8]? Or when also that beloved writer says: ‘The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I shall make your enemies the stool of your feet’ [Ps. 110:1]? Or when, unfolding the prophecies of Isaiah, he finds it written thus: ‘Thus says the Lord to Christ my Lord’? Or when he reads: ‘I came not down from heaven to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me’ [John 6:38]? Or when he finds it written: ‘Because he who sent me is greater than I’ [cf. John 14:24, 28]? Or when he finds it placed side by side with others: ‘Moreover, in your law it is written that the witness of two is true. I bear witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness of me’ [cf. John 8:17–18]?" (Treatise on the Trinity 26 [A.D. 235]).

"And I should have enough to do were I to endeavor to gather together all the passages [of the kind in the previous quotation] . . . since the divine Scripture, not so much of the Old as also of the New Testament, everywhere shows him to be born of the Father, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made, who always has obeyed and obeys the Father; that he always has power over all things, but as delivered, as granted, as by the Father himself permitted to him. And what can be so evident proof that this is not the Father, but the Son; as that he is set forth as being obedient to God the Father, unless, if he be believed to be the Father, Christ may be said to be subjected to another God the Father?" (ibid.)



Pope Dionysius


"Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the monarchy, the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it, as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. I have heard that some of your catechists and teachers of the divine Word take the lead in this tenet. They are, so to speak, diametrically opposed to the opinion of Sabellius. He, in his blasphemy, says that the Son is the Father and vice versa" (Letters of Pope Dionysius to Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria 1:1 [A.D. 262]).



Gregory the Wonderworker


"But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they confidently assert that there are not three persons, and introduce (the idea of) a person devoid of subsistence. Wherefore we clear ourselves of Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are the same [person]. . . . We forswear this, because we believe that three persons—namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are declared to possess the one Godhead: for the one divinity showing itself forth according to nature in the Trinity establishes the oneness of the nature" (A Sectional Confession of Faith 8 [A.D. 262]).

"But if they say, ‘How can there be three persons, and how but one divinity?’ we shall make this reply: That there are indeed three persons, inasmuch as there is one person of God the Father, and one of the Lord the Son, and one of the Holy Spirit; and yet that there is but one divinity, inasmuch as . . . there is one substance in the Trinity" (ibid., 14).



Methodius


"For the kingdom of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is one, even as their substance is one and their dominion one. Whence also, with one and the same adoration, we worship the one deity in three persons, subsisting without beginning, uncreated, without end, and to which there is no successor. For neither will the Father ever cease to be the Father, nor again the Son to be the Son and King, nor the Holy Ghost to be what in substance and personality he is. For nothing of the Trinity will suffer diminution, either in respect of eternity, or of communion, or of sovereignty" (Oration on the Psalms 5 [A.D. 305]).



Athanasius


"[The Trinity] is a Trinity not merely in name or in a figurative manner of speaking; rather, it is a Trinity in truth and in actual existence. Just as the Father is he that is, so also his Word is one that is and is God over all. And neither is the Holy Spirit nonexistent but actually exists and has true being. Less than these the Catholic Church does not hold, lest she sink to the level of the Jews of the present time, imitators of Caiaphas, or to the level of Sabellius" (Letters to Serapion 1:28 [A.D. 359]).

"They [the Father and the Son] are one, not as one thing now divided into two, but really constituting only one, nor as one thing twice named, so that the same becomes at one time the Father and at another his own Son. This latter is what Sabellius held, and he was judged a heretic. On the contrary, they are two, because the Father is Father and is not his own Son, and the Son is Son and not his own Father" (Discourses Against the Arians 3:4 [A.D. 360]).



Fulgentius of Ruspe


"See, in short you have it that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another; in person, each is other, but in nature they are not other. In this regard he [Christ] says, ‘The Father and I, we are one’ [John 10:30]. He teaches us that ‘one’ refers to their nature and ‘we are’ to their persons. In like manner it is said, ‘There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one’ [cf. 1 John 5:7]. Let Sabellius hear ‘we are,’ let him hear ‘three,’ and let him believe that there are three persons" (The Trinity 4:1 [A.D. 513]).
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
You're not flushing out Romans to bicker with are you Padre? Don't you guys ever get tired of that one? Hell's bells, I can't even keep track which side of that spat is which. ;-)
 

sanctus

The Padre
Oct 27, 2006
4,558
48
48
Ontario
www.poetrypoem.com
You're not flushing out Romans to bicker with are you Padre? Don't you guys ever get tired of that one? Hell's bells, I can't even keep track which side of that spat is which. ;-)


Nope, never get tired. Actually I'm working on some things for a possible book and just sharing some of the research I'm digging up;-)
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
I'd try to help you out by playing devil's advocate but that's the sort of thing I'll probably never get up to speed on. I think I got kicked in the metaphysicator when I was kid and didn't recover from it properly.

way cool about the book good luck with it.
 

sanctus

The Padre
Oct 27, 2006
4,558
48
48
Ontario
www.poetrypoem.com
I'd try to help you out by playing devil's advocate but that's the sort of thing I'll probably never get up to speed on. I think I got kicked in the metaphysicator when I was kid and didn't recover from it properly.

way cool about the book good luck with it.

YOU??? DEvil's advocate!!! I can't even imagine it:)
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
I can't really play devil's advocate for you. You probably don't want an atheist's perspective on the issue, and how they rationalize it... although it is probably similar to the United Pentecostals... okay, I will shoot.

Well, the Pentecostals denounce papal authority right? Sure that creates a load of problems because then one is faced with the question of how to interpret the bible properly, unless everyone is guided by the holy spirit, which is a bit much. Since thy denounce the authority of Rome, they are free to denounce the teachings on that particular issue. So they probably wouldn't want to hear anything not straight out of the bible.

Then, because unlike me they must place infallibility within the book, they interpret usages of plural pronouns as a passive voice. Maybe like in scientific writing: "... we then divide the above equation by the factor... " They can also point out that the old testament doesn't strictly make reference to Jesus, especially regarding Genesis, excepting the description of the logos in... John(?) and its subsequent inclusion in some versions of the Bible. Of course, everything hinges on their original rejection of Papal authority and the necessity for free interpretation... whereby they basically seek to usurp papal authority.

Of course, as an atheist, I simply say, "I have a much more interesting novel sitting on my shelf if you want," and then politely drop it so long as it doesn't show up in the laws governing my life.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Hurrah...just what we need...a good father writing another book that won't make any more difference in the human condition than the holy bible...the koran or any other pseudo-insight to the nature of being....
I have no problem with anyone writing or saying whatever it is they want to write or say....I do have a problem with people who fail to present their work with an acknowledgement that their particular work is predicated and built on notions and ideas that have both a second agenda to them and are in large part regurgitations of ideas and thoughts from many others....
I suppose the right to realize a profit when a book sells...is purchased by people becuase it is given the "authority" the "legitimacy" of the church....is perfectly acceptable....
Oral Roberts, the the Bakkers (Jim and Tammy-Fae), Swaggart, Billy Graham...lots and lots of people with "messages" have been looting the spirit of mankind for years.....
Surely there's room for one more....
 

sanctus

The Padre
Oct 27, 2006
4,558
48
48
Ontario
www.poetrypoem.com
Hurrah...just what we need...a good father writing another book that won't make any more difference in the human condition than the holy bible...the koran or any other pseudo-insight to the nature of being.......


The good news for you is we live here, thus no one will force you to purchase, or read, anything you don't wish to. Amazingly enough, other people might just find such a book up their alley, so to speak! Imagine that!
:lol:
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Hey Sanctus....I stopped imagining what the great unwashed and the holy-rollers would opt for many many years ago. You can sell anything to the postmodern man just like you could sell anything to the ignorant of the dark ages...
Might I suggest that if you or one of your fellow minions went to work on addressing and demanding that the RC Church be accountable for its crimes and be held to the standards of law (human law...not the "law" that seems to be embraced by you people..as a "law" that permits you to ignore all other laws becuase your's is "divine"...) that reversing the decline and decay of the Chrisitan faith might be served...since this effort would (if successful of course) demonstrate that there's an availability and acknowledgement that the relationship between any faith and the greater population of the earth is one of co-operation and mutuality than simply the robed and decorated standing in cathedrals ladling out blame and largely useless advice...
Why not focus on the relationships between organized religion and politics...between organized religions and big business.....
Inaction when action is called for is as despicable a choice as action that brings harm...
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
So they probably wouldn't want to hear anything not straight out of the bible.
Even that isn't enough for some, there are over 100 verses that reference Jesus as the 'Son of God' and several references where God speaks (and people hear) and calls Jesus 'my beloved son'. You would think that would settle the issue, but apparently not.
They can also point out that the old testament doesn't strictly make reference to Jesus, especially regarding Genesis, excepting the description of the logos in... John(?) and its subsequent inclusion in some versions of the Bible.
The OT does more than reference Jesus (and you are right that 'Jesus' is not the name used but it is still one and the same) Take these verses, it is certainly Christ speaking, as He does in most books that deal with prophecy that is still in our future),

Proverb:8:22:
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way,
before his works of old.
Proverb:8:23:
I was set up from everlasting,
from the beginning,
or ever the earth was.
Proverb:8:24:
When there were no depths,
I was brought forth;
when there were no fountains abounding with water.
Proverb:8:25:
Before the mountains were settled,
before the hills was I brought forth:
Proverb:8:26:
While as yet he had not made the earth,
nor the fields,
nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
Proverb:8:27:
When he prepared the heavens,
I was there:
when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
Proverb:8:28:
When he established the clouds above:
when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
Proverb:8:29:
When he gave to the sea his decree,
that the waters should not pass his commandment:
when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Proverb:8:30:
Then I was by him,
as one brought up with him:
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing always before him;
Proverb:8:31:
Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth;
and my delights were with the sons of men.
Proverb:8:32:
Now therefore hearken unto me,
O ye children:
for blessed are they that keep my ways.
Proverb:8:33:
Hear instruction,
and be wise,
and refuse it not.
Proverb:8:34:
Blessed is the man that heareth me,
watching daily at my gates,
waiting at the posts of my doors.
Proverb:8:35:
For whoso findeth me findeth life,
and shall obtain favour of the LORD.
Proverb:8:36:
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul:
all they that hate me love death.

How many of the verses in the OT that have the words 'angel of the Lord' are references to Christ? I would go with the majority, I would have said all except for the 'burning bush' because at that time God shows Moses His back.

When the verses that deal with the end times, those verses would also indicate it is Christ who is speaking. Using words like 'on that day I will...' certainly is a first-person situation. Ezekiel 37 is a perfect example of God talking to Christ,
Eze:37:1:
The hand of the LORD was upon me,
and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD,
and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones,
Eze:37:2:
And caused me to pass by them round about:
and,
behold,
there were very many in the open valley;
and,
lo,
they were very dry.
Eze:37:3:
And he said unto me,
Son of man,
can these bones live?
And I answered,
O Lord GOD,
thou knowest.
Eze:37:4:
Again he said unto me,
Prophesy upon these bones,
and say unto them,
O ye dry bones,
hear the word of the LORD.

The words will be what Jesus speaks at that time.

Eze:37:5:
Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones;
Behold,
I will cause breath to enter into you,
and ye shall live:
Eze:37:6:
And I will lay sinews upon you,
and will bring up flesh upon you,
and cover you with skin,
and put breath in you,
and ye shall live;
and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
Eze:37:7:
So I prophesied as I was commanded:
and as I prophesied,
there was a noise,
and behold a shaking,
and the bones came together,
bone to his bone.
Eze:37:8:
And when I beheld,
lo,
the sinews and the flesh came up upon them,
and the skin covered them above:
but there was no breath in them.
Eze:37:9:
Then said he unto me,
Prophesy unto the wind,
prophesy,
son of man,
and say to the wind,
Thus saith the Lord GOD;
Come from the four winds,
O breath,
and breathe upon these slain,
that they may live.
Eze:37:10:
So I prophesied as he commanded me,
and the breath came into them,
and they lived,
and stood up upon their feet,
an exceeding great army.
Eze:37:11:
Then he said unto me,
Son of man,
these bones are the whole house of Israel:
behold,
they say,
Our bones are dried,
and our hope is lost:
we are cut off for our parts.
Eze:37:12:
Therefore prophesy and say unto them,
Thus saith the Lord GOD;
Behold,
O my people,
I will open your graves,
and cause you to come up out of your graves,
and bring you into the land of Israel.
Eze:37:13:
And ye shall know that I am the LORD,
when I have opened your graves,
O my people,
and brought you up out of your graves,
Eze:37:14:
And shall put my spirit in you,
and ye shall live,
and I shall place you in your own land:
then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it,
and performed it,
saith the LORD.

Hurrah...just what we need...a good father writing another book that won't make any more difference in the human condition than the holy bible...the koran or any other pseudo-insight to the nature of being....
I have no problem with anyone writing or saying whatever it is they want to write or say....I do have a problem with people who fail to present their work with an acknowledgement that their particular work is predicated and built on notions and ideas that have both a second agenda to them and are in large part regurgitations of ideas and thoughts from many others....
I suppose the right to realize a profit when a book sells...is purchased by people becuase it is given the "authority" the "legitimacy" of the church....is perfectly acceptable....
Oral Roberts, the the Bakkers (Jim and Tammy-Fae), Swaggart, Billy Graham...lots and lots of people with "messages" have been looting the spirit of mankind for years.....
Surely there's room for one more....

Scripture says that knowledge is freely given (about spiritual things) by the Holy Spirit. That would seem to include 'insight into Scripture', can that then be turned around for profit. That would seem to make the selling of books not all that different from what the money-changers were doing in the Temple.

The early Christians were quick to spot new heresies. In the third century, Sabellius, a Libyan priest who was staying at Rome, invented a new one. He claimed there is only one person in the Godhead, so that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one person with different "offices," rather than three persons who are one being in the Godhead, as the orthodox position holds.

In the first book of the Bible when God is saying 'let us make man in our image and likeness' He is speaking to the Holy Spirit. Same as in the previous verses, God speaks and the Holy Spirit 'creates'. Man is dust and breath of life, our physical form is 'image', our connection to God is 'in spirit'. I have no doubts Christ was there as a witness but God was still speaking to just the Holy Spirit.
How is the relationship between man and woman the same, or different, from God and the Holy Spirit?

Later
 
Last edited:

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Well, I suppose I will stick to the view that I don't really support...

I think the true experts on the Old Testament (The Jews) would agree that those excerpts from Proverbs and the rest aren't supposed to be construed as pertaining to Jesus. The mere fact that no sect that believed that God had a son popped up before Christianity is proof of that. Also, note that in Job it refers to Satan as a son of god. As in, there is more than one. I think it can be easily argued that this is figurative language.

As for "angel of the lord" I would go with none. Since they probably are meant to reference Gabriel or Michael, or even the satan of Job. Certainly, they expected a messiah, but not a begotten son.

All of that is indirect at best, even if you disregard what I say. It provides no real evidence that God has a begotten son, unlike statements from the new testament.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Well, I suppose I will stick to the view that I don't really support...
Always a good choice LOL
I think the true experts on the Old Testament (The Jews) would agree that those excerpts from Proverbs and the rest aren't supposed to be construed as pertaining to Jesus. The mere fact that no sect that believed that God had a son popped up before Christianity is proof of that. Also, note that in Job it refers to Satan as a son of god. As in, there is more than one. I think it can be easily argued that this is figurative language.
Job was referencing Angels, so was Genesis 6, but those were always plural, sons of God. Satan isn't referenced as being a 'son of God' in Job. A 'son of God' is reserved for Holy Angels, not fallen ones.
Job:1:6:
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,
and Satan came also among them.

Job:2:1:
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,
and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

The 'experts' kind of missed His first coming, 'experts' being the ones who ran the Temple. What they did understand is that God was going to send a Messiah, what they didn't understand is all the sacrifices pertaining to the 'first born' was a subtle reference to Christ.

The 'experts' were going to kill Him when He told them how old He really was,
Joh:8:57:
Then said the Jews unto him,
Thou art not yet fifty years old,
and hast thou seen Abraham?
Joh:8:58:
Jesus said unto them,
Verily,
verily,
I say unto you,
Before Abraham was,
I am.

As for "angel of the lord" I would go with none. Since they probably are meant to reference Gabriel or Michael, or even the satan of Job. Certainly, they expected a messiah, but not a begotten son.

Re:21:9:
And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues,
and talked with me,
saying,
Come hither,
I will shew thee the bride,
the Lamb's wife.
Re:21:10:
And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain,
and shewed me that great city,
the holy Jerusalem,
descending out of heaven from God,

Re:22:8:
And I John saw these things,
and heard them.
And when I had heard and seen,
I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
Re:22:9:
Then saith he unto me,
See thou do it not:
for I am thy fellowservant,
and of thy brethren the prophets,
and of them which keep the sayings of this book:
worship God.

Re:22:16:
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David,
and the bright and morning star.
Re:22:17:
And the Spirit and the bride say,
Come.
And let him that heareth say,
Come.
And let him that is athirst come.
And whosoever will,
let him take the water of life freely.

The above is enough to show that Christ can and does take on the form of an Angel, if He can do it with John He could have also done it in the OT.


All of that is indirect at best, even if you disregard what I say. It provides no real evidence that God has a begotten son, unlike statements from the new testament.
Lets just call it a different POV.

I'm not sure how many Angels you see as having authority from God to kill men, but I see it as Christ alone having that authority, the armies of Heaven that come with Christ are only there to gather people, not to do the actual killing.
Isa:37:36:
Then the angel of the LORD went forth,
and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand:
and when they arose early in the morning,
behold,
they were all dead corpses.

This next verse is either Christ speaking or not.

Isa:63:3:
I have trodden the winepress alone;
and of the people there was none with me:
for I will tread them in mine anger,
and trample them in my fury;
and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments,
and I will stain all my raiment.

Later
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
My reference to Job was to provide evidence for a figurative translation of the words "Son of God," which I have done and you acknowledged them as describing sons of god as angels and not begotten children. You misunderstand how a Jew would interpret Job, read "A History of Satan" by Elaine Pagels for more information. Basically, the closest thing they have to a fallen angel is Azazel, Satan was the prosecution for the judgement on mortal righteousness and is not to be construed as evil in that verse.

As for more indirect verses, I have already usurped authority from the Church and so I don't have to accept anyone's interpretation of vague statements from the old testament, anything short of a statement saying "I God, shall beget a son who shall be god," won't cut it for me, the United Pentecostalist. So I don't want to get into an interpretation war...

Of course the New Testament is a different matter entirely. This is where I have to push the view that Jesus is God, not his son. I can find some I am god statements somewhere, or I am Lord and take it at face value. This is where I, personally as an atheist, have trouble. But I already have freedom of interpretation don't I? Having stolen authority from the Church, I can run off and choose the verses necessary to push my interpretation. Any verses thrown at me, I interpret differently than the person who showed it to me. As for the Roman Catholic Church... well I just have to erode the moral fabric don't I? Some Ad Hominem Tu Quoque attacks ought to work, "Look at how they treat ____! They can't possibly possess divine authority." or "Their priests are pedophiles! They can't be the messengers of God here on Earth." and I am done. With a little bit of effort I can revamp those fallacies and make a seemingly valid argument out of them. Let's see how this is done...

Well, divine authority supposedly rests in the clergy. (I secretly imply all clergy.) So we should expect these clergymen to behave in a divine way. (Does't really follow but no one will notice.) Yet, some of these clergymen are absolute monsters! (The one truth, overemphasised.) Which shows us that something is wrong in Rome, they cannot possess divine authority.

Having won the argument in the mind of a few, I promptly set up my pews and start up the tithe engine. Hey, lets throw universalism in there to make people feel better! Nobody likes being punished anyways. Or lets throw in whatever the parish seems to want.

Ok, I admit I got a little sarcastic there... but that is how I imagine the simplified, satirised protestant process occurs.

Am I off topic Sanctus? Not sure what you were looking for.
 

sanctus

The Padre
Oct 27, 2006
4,558
48
48
Ontario
www.poetrypoem.com
Hey Sanctus..
Why not focus on the relationships between organized religion and politics...between organized religions and big business.....
Inaction when action is called for is as despicable a choice as action that brings harm...

All that sounds very fine, not precisely built on any facts, but hey you certainly are entitled to any opinion you wish.

However, it's no good bitching at me. You feel that strongly on your issues, feel free to contact the Vatican. That is where the complaint department is located.:)