Something about the trinity

[thinkagain]

No. He's not trying to convince his audience of the resurrection of Christ. He's trying to convince them of the coming resurrection of all Christians..

Of course Clement is trying to convince his audience of a coming resurrection. He does this using Christ's resurrection as an analogy.

You posted this yourself from Clement Let us understand, dearly beloved, how the Master continually showeth unto us the resurrection that shall be hereafter; whereof He
made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised Him from the dead


Clement then goes on to give evidence of the resurrection in nature but fails to give evidence of Christ's resurrection (Jesus wandering around after death). The fact that the Gospel of Mark also knows nothing of Jesus wandering around after death compounds this problem.

This letter was written to the church of Corinth within the same time period that Paul wrote them the letter we now call 1 Corinthians. Let's take a look at what the church in Corinth was dealing with at the time:
1 Corinthians 15:12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

No this letter was not written at the same period as Paul. Paul was killed around 60AD. Clement is writing near the turn of the century (100 AD).

My loved ones, let's look at how God keeps showing us that one day all Christians will be raised from the dead just like Jesus was.

A critical reading of the text leads us to conclude that so little attention was given to the resurrection of Christ because it must have been a given; a shared belief they didn't need to spend any time debating. The claim Clement is making is that we will all be raised from the dead one day, just like Christ was. Bringing in other sources from the time period (like 1 Corinthians) completes the picture, revealing more details of why he wrote this and what the church was dealing with.

There is no honest reading of this text that gives the impression he was trying to convince them of the resurrection of Christ

As stated previously, convincing people that the resurrection is real is inextricably tied to the belief that the resurrection of Jesus was real.

If "as you say" the people had a shared belief that was beyond debate .... Then why do they need convincing of the truth of the resurrection ?

Your argument makes no sense in the context of what Clement is doing.

 

[CrabCake]

Of course Clement is trying to convince his audience of a coming resurrection.

You are being inconsistent. At times you pretend he was trying to give evidence of Christ's resurrection. At other times you admit that he was promoting a future resurrection of all believers.

Clement then goes on to give evidence of the resurrection in nature but fails to give evidence of Christ's resurrection (Jesus wandering around after death).

He doesn't give any evidence, but he does mention it. This tells us that he didn't feel the need to justify that claim. This, in turn, implies that the people he was writing to agreed with him on that issue. More importantly for our discussion, it reveals that your original claim that Clement had no knowledge of the physical resurrection was incorrect. He clearly knew about it and wrote to other people who clearly knew about it.

If "as you say" the people had a shared belief that was beyond debate .... Then why do they need convincing of the truth of the resurrection ?

The resurrection of Jesus was not in question. Whether others will be resurrected is what was in question. Why do they need convincing? Because not everyone agreed on this. Just like the Saduccees and Pharisees before them disagreed on this very point, so too did early Christianity. The question isn't whether Jesus was raised from the dead, they all agreed on this. The question was whether we should be expecting the same after we die. Thus why Clement writes about it and says in effect yes, we should expect to be raised from the dead just like Christ was, nature itself shows us that this pattern of death followed by life was created by God.

Even today we still find people misunderstanding Christ's resurrection. Many Christians mistakenly believe that Christ rose from the dead because he was God. If that's what you believe then there is no reason for you to believe that we also will be raised from the dead. Few Christians even today understand that Christ rose from the dead because death had no claim over him and that as a result of that event, it no longer has a claim over us either.

 

[thinkagain]

You are being inconsistent. At times you pretend he was trying to give evidence of Christ's resurrection. At other times you admit that he was promoting a future resurrection of all believers.

You are not listening because your are desperately clinging to denial. Clement is giving evidence for resurrection ... Period. He is trying to show Christians that the resurrection promised by Jesus is real.

Clement gives a number of examples as evidence to show that the resurrection is real.

What Clement does not give is the best evidence one could give for the resurrection. Jesus wandering around after death.

. He clearly knew about it and wrote to other people who clearly knew about it.

This is abject nonsense. Clement believed what was said in Mark. Jesus is risen ! He gives no indication that he knows of the physical resurrection stories in Matt.

The resurrection of Jesus was not in question. Whether others will be resurrected is what was in question. Why do they need convincing? Because not everyone agreed on this. Just like the Saduccees and Pharisees before them disagreed on this very point, so too did early Christianity. The question isn't whether Jesus was raised from the dead, they all agreed on this. The question was whether we should be expecting the same after we die. Thus why Clement writes about it and says in effect yes, we should expect to be raised from the dead just like Christ was, nature itself shows us that this pattern of death followed by life was created by God.

Where are you getting this from ? What on earth are you talking about ? Who are these Sadducees and Pharisees that even knew stories of Jesus wandering around after death never mind believing in them ?

 

[CrabCake]

You are not listening because your are desperately clinging to denial. Clement is giving evidence for resurrection ... Period. He is trying to show Christians that the resurrection promised by Jesus is real.

No. He is making a case for why we should believe in the coming resurrection of believers.

Clement gives a number of examples as evidence to show that the resurrection is real.

No. He gives examples of what he sees as pointers to a coming resurrection, the first of which is the fact that Jesus was resurrected and that this should be seen as a signpost pointing towards our eventual resurrection, or a "first fruits".

What Clement does not give is the best evidence one could give for the resurrection. Jesus wandering around after death.

Because you've mistaken the whole point of his argument. He isn't attempting to argue that resurrection is possible. Every Christian believed resurrection was possible since all of them believed that Jesus had resurrected. Not only that, but they would know about the people Elijah and Elisha had resurrected from the dead, the valley of the dried bones which God had turned into living beings, the raising of Lazarus from the dead, etc. None of them needed evidence that God can raise people from the dead. All of them would have believed that was possible. They needed a reason to believe that we should expect for God to do this for believers who have died.

This is abject nonsense. Clement believed what was said in Mark. Jesus is risen ! He gives no indication that he knows of the physical resurrection stories in Matt.

Now you are modifying your original claim. Your original claim was that he had no knowledge of Christ's physical resurrection. Now you are claiming he had no knowledge of certain verses from Matthew.

Where are you getting this from ? What on earth are you talking about ? Who are these Sadducees and Pharisees that even knew stories of Jesus wandering around after death never mind believing in them ?

You don't know about this yet are pretending to be knowledgeable on this topic? Wow!

The Saduccees and Pharisees were Jewish religious groups around the time of Jesus. One of their main differences of opinion revolved around "the resurrection of the dead". This was a doctrine, promoted by Pharisees and rejected by Sadduccees, that said that God would raise the faithful from the dead. Most of the time that you read in the bible about belief in "the resurrection of the dead", they are referring to this specific doctrine. The idea that the faithful dead would be resurrected comes to us via the Pharisees. It is the same argument that transferred over to Christianity.

 

[Oberon]

John is a Pauline Hellenic Fusion work written decades after Mark at a time after the Jewish Temple had been destroyed and the influence of the Pauline Christians was starting to assert itself over that of the Judeo Christians (Church of Jerusalem). And in fact the animosity of the Church towards Jews (and Judaism was increasing)

Do you have a source for the bolded? I don't find any anachronisms in the New Testament re before and after the Romans destroyed the Temple, in books of John, either of them. The New Testament is a very contemporary work, as shown by Joachim Jeremiah's excellent historical study, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing here, I'm genuinely curious about the evidence for John being not being part of the original cannon and coming after the fall of the Temple. All of the books were written later from the actual events described, as Jewish theology was largely an oral tradition itself, and the Christians began writing theirs down as the Way expanded to other regions and a standard was needed for teaching purposes, so being written later doesn't automatically mean what is written is false or made up or incorrect necessarily. Both John's Gospel and Revelations also bear more than a casual relation to the Pharisees faction's teachings and 'Secrets' as well, especially major themes in Revelations, by the way; they had a strong apocalyptic influence in their sect going back more than a hundred years before the time of Jesus.

As for the second bolded phrase, the persecutions of Christians by Jewish authorities is more the case.

 

[depakote]

The word trinity is never explicitly mentioned in the bible. Although it is worth noting that christ said in a few verses that he was God (all of which were from John), there was no verse connecting the hold spirit with the father and the son as one entity. That is unless you count 1 John 5:7-8:


The problem with these 2 verses is that they were added in the 4th century AD despite Paul explicitly stating that changing the word of God was blasphemy against God. Also, everything hinting at the trinity is found in the new testament. No orthodox Jew believes in a father, son, and holy ghost.

Exactly! Someone added it into the Greek Manuscripts. Those hooligans. John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John. Are these all the same John?

 

[LowDown]

The word trinity is never explicitly mentioned in the bible. Although it is worth noting that christ said in a few verses that he was God (all of which were from John), there was no verse connecting the hold spirit with the father and the son as one entity. That is unless you count 1 John 5:7-8:


The problem with these 2 verses is that they were added in the 4th century AD despite Paul explicitly stating that changing the word of God was blasphemy against God. Also, everything hinting at the trinity is found in the new testament. No orthodox Jew believes in a father, son, and holy ghost.

Trinity is a concept that grew out of 400 years of study, contemplation, and prayer about the message of the scriptures concerning the nature of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. The grand consensus became that the godhead consisted of three persons in one substance.

But it all basically boils down to this: Any theology that puts limits on what God can do is wrong. If God wanted to appear as three separate people then He could do it and did. Arians were wrong because they thought that God could not come into being as Himself and His Own Son at the same time, they thought that logic dictated that the Father came first and the Son after, but logic does not apply here. Gnostics thought that God was too pure to come down and mix it up with the dirty, sinful mortals, but they were wrong; God can do anything. And so it goes with all the rest of the heresies.

 

[JohnPaul]

Trinity is a concept that grew out of 400 years of study, contemplation, and prayer about the message of the scriptures concerning the nature of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. The grand consensus became that the godhead consisted of three persons in one substance.

But it all basically boils down to this: Any theology that puts limits on what God can do is wrong. If God wanted to appear as three separate people then He could do it and did. Arians were wrong because they thought that God could not come into being as Himself and His Own Son at the same time, they thought that logic dictated that the Father came first and the Son after, but logic does not apply here. Gnostics thought that God was too pure to come down and mix it up with the dirty, sinful mortals, but they were wrong; God can do anything. And so it goes with all the rest of the heresies.

The Gnostics believed that the God described in the Bible was a false impostor god who had created a flawed material world and trapped human souls in it for his own amusement, while the True God remained remote and pure. The Serpent in the Garden of Eden was an emanation of the True God sent to rescue the trapped human souls by giving them Divine Knowledge from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. The Serpent promised us that if we ate the fruit, we would not surely die, but would become as gods. We ate the fruit and we still have that promise.

 

[Schism]

But it all basically boils down to this: Any theology that puts limits on what God can do is wrong.

I couldn't possibly agree more.

Our current state of imperfection in our fallen nature severely limits our ability to know and/or comprehend the fullness of God's substance and nature. Religious authority figures don't like to admit that they 'don't know' and tend to profess belief in whatever the official position being taught is. Dogmatic theology constructs a box to contain God within a limited and unmoving space requiring consensus and agreement with approved statements and proclamations. God is unlimited, unrestrained, and infinite. It is impossible at this time for us to completely understand the Lord beyond what He has revealed through His Word, His Son, and His Spirit.

 

[it's just me]

I couldn't possibly agree more.

Our current state of imperfection in our fallen nature severely limits our ability to know and/or comprehend the fullness of God's substance and nature. Religious authority figures don't like to admit that they 'don't know' and tend to profess belief in whatever the official position being taught is. Dogmatic theology constructs a box to contain God within a limited and unmoving space requiring consensus and agreement with approved statements and proclamations. God is unlimited, unrestrained, and infinite. It is impossible at this time for us to completely understand the Lord beyond what He has revealed through His Word, His Son, and His Spirit.

That's what "dogmatic theology" is: what God has revealed through His Word, His Son, and His Spirit. You surely are confused. Didn't they teach you that at Moody?

 

[Schism]

That's what "dogmatic theology" is: what God has revealed through His Word, His Son, and His Spirit. You surely are confused. Didn't they teach you that at Moody?

Once again I'll repeat myself; the issue lies with the source from which one acquires learning. The choices are: from (1) God or (2) men.

DO you believe that "Jesus is Lord" because it's written in a church pamphlet or printed on a stained-glass window?

 

[it's just me]

Once again I'll repeat myself; the issue lies with the source from which one acquires learning. The choices are: from (1) God or (2) men.

DO you believe that "Jesus is Lord" because it's written in a church pamphlet or printed on a stained-glass window?

There are no prohibitions on how you come to believe.

 

[nota bene]

Once again I'll repeat myself; the issue lies with the source from which one acquires learning. The choices are: from (1) God or (2) men.

DO you believe that "Jesus is Lord" because it's written in a church pamphlet or printed on a stained-glass window?

Do you believe this because it's printed in a book?

 

[it's just me]

Do you believe this because it's printed in a book?

Not to mention that he's a man and this is his own teaching, it's not scriptural.

 

[Schism]

Do you believe this because it's printed in a book?

I believe God's Word as taught and illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Schism]

Not to mention that he's a man and this is his own teaching, it's not scriptural.

Listening to the Holy Spirit as He teaches and guides a person in studying God's Word is very much scriptural. In fact, apart from the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to understand God's Word.

You seem to be arguing against that.

 

[Schism]

There are no prohibitions on how you come to believe.

Actually there is. Jesus calls them thieves in John 10. And besides, how can a dead man understand the things of God?

John 8:47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
John 5:24-25 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. 25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

 

[nota bene]

I believe God's Word as taught and illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

And so as well as the spoken Word, the printed Word is not needed?

 

[Schism]

And so as well as the spoken Word, the printed Word is not needed?

What are you talking about? The written Word is essential. It's the same letter that God has written to us all.

 

[LittleNipper]

The phrase "only begotten" translates the Greek word monogenes. This word is variously translated into English as "only," "one and only," and "only begotten."

False teachers have taken this phrase to try to prove their false teaching that Jesus Christ isn't God; that Jesus isn't equal in essence to God as the Second Person of the Trinity. They take the word "begotten" and say that Jesus is a later additional creation because only someone who had a beginning in time can be "begotten." What this fails to note is that "begotten" is an English translation of a Greek word. As such, we have to look at the original meaning of the Greek word, not delegate an English understanding to the text.

So what does monogenes mean? According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, monogenes has two primary definitions. The first definition pertains to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship. This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son" (KJV). Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only one by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. Therefore, there is uniqueness in Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenes in that context.

The second definition pertains to being the only one of its type or class, unique in kind. This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16 (see also John 1:14, 18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9). John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses monogenes to highlight Jesus as uniquely God's Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God's sons and daughters by adoption (Ephesians 1:5). Jesus is God’s “one and only” Son.

Terms like "Father" and "Son," describing God and Jesus, are human terminology that assist in our understand the relationship between the different Persons of the Trinity. If you comprehend the relationship between a human father and a human son, then you can understand, in part, the relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. The analogy breaks down if you try to take it too far and teach, as some Christian cults (such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses), that Jesus was literally "begotten" for them meansing “produced” or “created” by God the Father.

 

[RAMOSS]

The phrase "only begotten" translates the Greek word monogenes. This word is variously translated into English as "only," "one and only," and "only begotten."

False teachers have taken this phrase to try to prove their false teaching that Jesus Christ isn't God; that Jesus isn't equal in essence to God as the Second Person of the Trinity. They take the word "begotten" and say that Jesus is a later additional creation because only someone who had a beginning in time can be "begotten." What this fails to note is that "begotten" is an English translation of a Greek word. As such, we have to look at the original meaning of the Greek word, not delegate an English understanding to the text.

So what does monogenes mean? According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, monogenes has two primary definitions. The first definition pertains to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship. This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son" (KJV). Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only one by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. Therefore, there is uniqueness in Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenes in that context.

The second definition pertains to being the only one of its type or class, unique in kind. This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16 (see also John 1:14, 18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9). John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses monogenes to highlight Jesus as uniquely God's Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God's sons and daughters by adoption (Ephesians 1:5). Jesus is God’s “one and only” Son.

Terms like "Father" and "Son," describing God and Jesus, are human terminology that assist in our understand the relationship between the different Persons of the Trinity. If you comprehend the relationship between a human father and a human son, then you can understand, in part, the relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. The analogy breaks down if you try to take it too far and teach, as some Christian cults (such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses), that Jesus was literally "begotten" for them meansing “produced” or “created” by God the Father.

Of course, translating monogenes as 'only' has a significant problem. In Hebews 11;17-19, the word Monogenes was used to describe Issac, and Issac was not the only son of Abraham. So, that basically falsifies your interpretation

 

[LittleNipper]

Of course, translating monogenes as 'only' has a significant problem. In Hebews 11;17-19, the word Monogenes was used to describe Issac, and Issac was not the only son of Abraham. So, that basically falsifies your interpretation

Abraham and Sarah had only one child together --- this child was Issac, the son of promise. That was explained and you simply ignored it or missed it. :doh

 

[RAMOSS]

Abraham and Sarah had only one child together --- this child was Issac, the son of promise. That was explained and you simply ignored it or missed it. :doh

So what?? He still was not the only child of Abraham. Therefore, your interpretation is wrong. trying to rationalize that part of the story away is , well, just plain silly, and not along the line of the way the word MONOGENES is used in the Greek language. For example, in Antiquities 20:20, Josephus used the term monogenes to mean 'favored son'.

 

[it's just me]

http://www.theopedia.com/granville-sharps-rule

 

[RAMOSS]

http://www.theopedia.com/granville-sharps-rule

This appears to be the case of 'translation is interpretation'... and preconceptions guide translations. That rule is explicitly saying that religious belief trumps grammar.