Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
You see, the ancient fathers explained that when we say that the three divine persons have one will, we don't mean that they will the same thing, but that their way of willing is the same.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
But either way, if there is absolute unity and congruence, how is there differentiation? And if there is differentiation, how are there not multiple gods?

---

My own understanding of the first question is that it is simply the case that it is so. It doesn't require further explanation. If there are three different hypostases, then they are, of necessity, distinct. What makes the Trinity different from any three of us is precisely that unity and congruence, as it were.

---

OK. I guess that's an explanation.

So the difference between distinction in God and distinction in humanity is that distinction in God doesn't involve any kind of distinction?

---

I've read and re-read this and I still don't understand how you've got that from what I said.

I didn't say that there was no distinction. In fact, I've spent most of my participation in this thread saying the exact opposite to that. If there are three Persons, how can there possibly not be distinction? They are distinct and separate, and there is nothing in that that implies tritheism or any other form of polytheism because their nature, their essence, their substance, or whichever word you prefer, is one and the same.

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
I didn't say they will different things. I said that willing the same thing is not a sign of oneness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
I think that we should do some more research about what polytheism means. Because all the fathers I have read say that polytheism is to believe that there are different divine natures and not that there is one divine nature in more than one divine persons. You seem to be thinking that polytheism has a different meaning...

---

quote:

---

Polytheism refers to the honouring of 'many deities', each of whom is experienced and acknowledged as an independent, individual personality, not as an aspect or archetype of something else.

---

quote:

---

Hard polytheists believe that gods are distinct and separate beings. Hard polytheists may believe in a unifying principle such as the One of the Platonists.

Soft polytheists regard their multiplicity of Gods as being manifestations of either common entities, or representing different aspects or facets of a single personal God, the latter also sometimes known as "inclusive monotheists", as are many modern neopagan groups.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I've read and re-read this and I still don't understand how you've got that from what I said.

---

quote:

---

What makes the Trinity different from any three of us is precisely that unity and congruence, as it were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I didn't say that there was no distinction. In fact, I've spent most of my participation in this thread saying the exact opposite to that. If there are three Persons, how can there possibly not be distinction? They are distinct and separate, and there is nothing in that that implies tritheism or any other form of polytheism because their nature, their essence, their substance, or whichever word you prefer, is one and the same.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
I am not trying to understand what is polytheism by looking at the current use of the word, but by looking at the way the ancient confessors and fathers understood the term...

---

I understand that you care what the ancient confessors and father thought. But they are no more authoritative to me than Swedenborg is to you. I don't think that it matters how they understood the term - what matters is the actual truth. I have read some of them in the past, and am interested to read them now so that I can understand where you are coming from.

Yet when I quote Augustine or Athanasius I hear that they don't really count.

I would prefer that you reference sources that are more widely accepted, such as the Bible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
I agree with you that today we might call polytheism the existence of more than one divine persons. This does not mean that our use of the word is historically and theologically accurate.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I've read and re-read this and I still don't understand how you've got that from what I said.

---

I got this from your statement:

quote:

---

What makes the Trinity different from any three of us is precisely that unity and congruence, as it were.

---

My thought is that a perfect unity and congruence means "no distinction."

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I didn't say that there was no distinction. In fact, I've spent most of my participation in this thread saying the exact opposite to that. If there are three Persons, how can there possibly not be distinction? They are distinct and separate, and there is nothing in that that implies tritheism or any other form of polytheism because their nature, their essence, their substance, or whichever word you prefer, is one and the same.

---

Both you and andreas are saying over and over that the nature is the same but the persons are distinct - and yet that this is neither unity or tritheism. Your philosophy appears to be so deeply ingrained that this makes sense to you and does not appear to be a contradiction.

---

quote:

---

You say repeatedly that we don't understand - as if we have not studied theology.

---

quote:

---

I understand that you really believe what you are saying. I'm just saying that it doesn't hold together, as far as I can see. I could be wrong.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Both you and andreas are saying over and over that the nature is the same but the persons are distinct - and yet that this is neither unity or tritheism.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
My suspicion is that, assuming that Andreas is quoting correctly, the fathers that Andreas is quoting were thinking of neo-Platonism. They weren't thinking of polytheism as such. The attempt is to head off Arianism by the back route.

There are two main concerns for these fathers. The first is that they want to refute Arius. The second is that they want to avoid any appearance of modalism or sabellianism (since that had already been condemned).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
All the fathers that Andreas is quoting come from the Alexandrene school of theology. (Arianism being an Alexandrene heresy.) Modalism is an Antiochene heresy. The Western understanding of the Trinity has Antiochene roots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Andreas of course has a problem in explaining how the Jews worshipped the Logos that revealed himself to Moses, how the Jews were not to have any God beside or before the Logos that revealed himself to Moses, and yet how the Jews worshipped the Father.

---

I see that. How is it possible not to see these all as the same God?

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I was using your original terms in order for clarity's sake and seem to have achieved the opposite because it seems that I understood from "unity and congruence" somehing different from what you intended by it. I'm sorry. I was using the terms to refer to the unity of purpose and will of the Persons, their operation in harmony. Harmony is perhaps here a good word for what I'm trying to say, because harmony cannot exist if there is no distinction between the voices.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
Is it deeply ingrained, though? This is all new to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
The only time my back arched and I let that show through was when you began to ask for biblical justifications for things, as though that were the sole authority, and implying that what we say is somehow less biblical than an understanding that seems (to me at least, not having studied in depth) to be at variance with the Church's understanding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
To me, it makes perfect sense, yet to you, it appears as tritheism. That's fair enough. When you explain how it appears to you to be tritheism, it sounds as though you're expressing the Persons as consituent parts of a whole and, in my understanding, that doesn't hold together.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Sorry about that. I do think that what you say is not biblical - and I'm surprised that neither you or andreas seem interested in making efforts to show that it is biblical.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
It all boils down to revelation. When the holy men interacted with someone that was not God the Father, someone distinct from God the Father, who had the same nature with God the Father, they realized that to say God is one person is a mistake.!

---

Andreas, do you really mean this? I would be amazed if you could quote any kind of source that expresses this idea.

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Of course, the fathers used the bible to make their points.

To put it simply... You say that more than one person is polytheism. They would have said that this is contrary to the... Scriptures!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,—numerically, I mean...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I was using your original terms in order for clarity's sake and seem to have achieved the opposite because it seems that I understood from "unity and congruence" somehing different from what you intended by it. I'm sorry. I was using the terms to refer to the unity of purpose and will of the Persons, their operation in harmony. Harmony is perhaps here a good word for what I'm trying to say, because harmony cannot exist if there is no distinction between the voices.

---

OK. I guess that's a better comparison. I'm surprised, though, that you don't see polytheism as a genuine danger in this thinking.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
Is it deeply ingrained, though? This is all new to me.

---

I hadn't realized that. I'd be interested to know how it ocmpares with what you previously thought.

---

It was I who resurrected the thread a week ago with this post. Before that, it had lain dormant since December.

It's a little difficult to describe accurately how I understood this. There was certainly much haziness. Here's my attempt, though. I had this concept of the divine nature being some mysterious, deeper reality of which the three Persons of the Trinity were somehow part. It was almost as though the divine nature was a being/entity in itself but I wouldn't have articulated it like that. I suppose I just accepted that each of the Persons was fully God while still being part of this "divine nature", and tried not to think too much about how this could be possible, calling it a "mystery". Looking back, I think that my understanding of the word "substance" is what lay at the heart of this. Nature or essence would probably have caused less of a problem for me, with hindsight.

Anyway, I first began to be uncomfortable with this when I came across the idea of modalism about a year ago in my Orthodox reading, and realised that my understanding definitely verged in that direction. I suppose I just never gave it much more thought than that, until recently.

Because of this, my main problem with the double procession was that it wasn't Orthodox, and I'll confess that I came up with a very strange theory about why it was wrong, because in my hazy understanding of the Trinity, it really didn't matter too much whether the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father alone, or from both the Father and the Son. Indeed, I was a proponent of the idea that it was purely a linguistic misunderstanding based on confusion between the two Greek verbs for different senses of to proceed, and the Latin procedere which could easily be used either way, citing the fact that Byzantine Catholics do not recite the filioque.

Now the problem of the double-procession has finally fallen into place for me. If the characteristic (for want of a better term) of being eternal source is possessed by the Son as well as the Father (which is the only way the Holy Spirit can eternally proceed from the Son as well), then this characteristic must be of the nature and not the hypostasis, and must, therefore be shared by the Holy Spirit as well (Who also fully possesses this nature). Yet Christian theology does not know of a fourth Person proceeding from the Holy Spirit, who would then have another proceeding from Him, and so forth. The only other explanation is that the Holy Spirit does not share the same nature as the Father and the Son, which I don't think that anybody claims. All of this is only a problem, of course, if you have the distinct view of nature and hypostasis that I now accept, with the divine nature being, essentially, a genus, although one that is ineffable, unknowable, beyond human comprehension and even beyond the concept of "beyond", residing in the Father, from whom the Son and the Holy Spirit eternally have their being, and, therefore, the same nature, which is why I reject the double-procession.

Before conversing with Andreas about this, I had never been exposed to the idea that the divine nature as analogous to the human nature, or indeed any other nature. St Gregory has deepened my understanding and now I would like to read more. I have had some Fathers recommended to me. I consider it all a part of my growth.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
To me, it makes perfect sense, yet to you, it appears as tritheism. That's fair enough. When you explain how it appears to you to be tritheism, it sounds as though you're expressing the Persons as consituent parts of a whole and, in my understanding, that doesn't hold together.

---

That expresses it well. I understand that you don't intend tritheism, and I certainly don't intend modalism. It helps to understand that Orthodoxy is sensitized to modalism just as I am sensitive to polytheism.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Firstly, because your denomination is a tiny minority among Western Christians. I am concerned about mainline Western Christians and they seem to be interested in keeping the same trinitarian faith with the ancient Church. Sorry about that.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
OK, I will use some things that Justin the Martyr said. I will use his words because Arius had not been born when Justin spoke those things against Judaism.

quote:

---

Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,—numerically, I mean...

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Note that the term "the Maker of heaven and earth" was attributed by the first ecumenical council to the Father... not because the Son is not Creator as well, but because it was a custom for the Father to be called Maker so that He can be distinguished from the Son in discussions, as the above passage shows.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Justin repeats that claim, that the Patriarchs and the Prophets did not interact with God the Father but with God the Son and that the two are distinct, throughout his discussion with Trypho the Jew.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
One can only read the Old Testament and see that when the Son is revealed, He speaks about God the Father as one distinct from Him.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I am impressed. You are right. So Orthodoxy really does teach this.

---

quote:

---

Meaning that they were aware that this is a problem. The terminology implies that the Father was the primary Creator, and that the contribution of the Logos was secondary.

---

quote:

---

Wouldn't it have been easier to call them one and ascribe the distinction to figurative language?

---

quote:

---

or with what took the place of the Son before the Incarnation.

---

quote:

---

I'm wondering what kind of references you are thinking of here. Do you mean the prophecies of the coming Messiah?/QUOTE]

No, I'm thinking the references to God "talking" with the holy men in the Old Testament. That God was God the Son and not God the Father. For more info have a look at the extensive works of the ancient fathers on the Christian faith and the Old Testament.

[quote]Certainly whenever "the Lord" speaks in Scripture He claims to be God Himself.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Freddy, mainline Christians believe that the ancient Church was trinitarian and that this faith is true. So, for them, if they found out that the ancient understanding was different from theirs, they can change their understanding to fit the ancient faith. Things are different to you, because you are not bound by the faith of the ancient church, since you think as authoritative the writings of Swedenborg and the scriptures. This is why I didn't spend much time showing my point from the scriptures, but I spoke of the ancient fathers instead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
It's an Orthodox vs non-Orthodox thing (if it is a thing at all... After all, fr. jrrt01 says that the faith of the Anglican Church is the same with the faith I confessed in this thread...)

---

I didn't realize that you had been satisfied that the non-Orthodox churches are not unitarian after all.

So it looks like this thread has accomplished something.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I didn't realize that you had been satisfied that the non-Orthodox churches are not unitarian after all.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Certainly whenever "the Lord" speaks in Scripture He claims to be God Himself.

---

This is where we disagree... He claims to be God the Son, not God the Father. Yes, He is divine, exactly like the Father, but He is revealed to be distinct from Him.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
If the characteristic (for want of a better term) of being eternal source is possessed by the Son as well as the Father (which is the only way the Holy Spirit can eternally proceed from the Son as well), then this characteristic must be of the nature and not the hypostasis, and must, therefore be shared by the Holy Spirit as well (Who also fully possesses this nature).

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
Now the problem of the double-procession has finally fallen into place for me. If the characteristic (for want of a better term) of being eternal source is possessed by the Son as well as the Father (which is the only way the Holy Spirit can eternally proceed from the Son as well), then this characteristic must be of the nature and not the hypostasis, and must, therefore be shared by the Holy Spirit as well (Who also fully possesses this nature). Yet Christian theology does not know of a fourth Person proceeding from the Holy Spirit, who would then have another proceeding from Him, and so forth. The only other explanation is that the Holy Spirit does not share the same nature as the Father and the Son, which I don't think that anybody claims. All of this is only a problem, of course, if you have the distinct view of nature and hypostasis that I now accept, with the divine nature being, essentially, a genus, although one that is ineffable, unknowable, beyond human comprehension and even beyond the concept of "beyond", residing in the Father, from whom the Son and the Holy Spirit eternally have their being, and, therefore, the same nature, which is why I reject the double-procession.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
Before conversing with Andreas about this, I had never been exposed to the idea that the divine nature as analogous to the human nature, or indeed any other nature.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
The words used in scriptures are used with different meanings in different occasions. So, the term angel sometimes refers to angels, but other times refers to God the Son, and other times to people etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
The important thing from an Orthodox perspective is that "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob" is Jesus before the Incarnation and it is Him Whom the Jews rejected when he came in human flesh.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
The view of nature and hypostasis that you describe does have a logic to it. I have always thought, though, that it is a somewhat tortured way of reconciling a literalistic view of the Scripture with the need to refute Arius.

---

quote:

---

The main difficulty I have with the particular issue of the double procession, although this is really off the topic, is reconciling it with Jesus' statements about how the Holy Spirit proceeds.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree. I think that it is interesting that you agree with the need to have this One be the same One who came into the world as Jesus Christ. Most people assume that Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Father. But you are right that logically He has to be the Son.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
For the millionth time I repeat that IT WAS NOT A WAY OF RECONCILING SCRIPTURES WHILE REFUTING ARIUS BECAUSE THIS FAITH WAS EXPRESSED AND CONFESSED LONG BEFORE ARIUS.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:

---

The main difficulty I have with the particular issue of the double procession, although this is really off the topic, is reconciling it with Jesus' statements about how the Holy Spirit proceeds.

---

What statements? Jesus made only one recorded statement about that, and he says clearly that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

---

quote:

---

Luke 11:13 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!"

John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 3:11 John said, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

John 15:26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me."

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.

John 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on [them,] and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.”

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
There are quite a few statements. Jesus does say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father in these statements:

quote:

---

Luke 11:13 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!"

John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever.

---

But I'm thinking of other statements, where Jesus is described as the one who controls the Holy Spirit:

quote:

---

Matthew 3:11 John said, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

John 15:26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me."

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.

John 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on [them,] and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.”

---

I don't think that it is hard to see a tension between these statements. Not that I want to get into this issue. But Saint Bertelin said that this was significant to him. My point was just the need to reconcile these passages.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
I doubt it was one among many understandings inside ancient church... I think it was THE Apostolic teaching and it was confessed unanimously. Do you have any evidence that other understandings co-existed inside the ancient church? Because I have read no other explanation in the writings of the ancients on the issue...

---

quote:

---

Adoptionism- God granted Jesus powers and then adopted him as a Son.
Albigenses- Reincarnation and two gods: one good and other evil.
Apollinarianism- Jesus divine will overshadowed and replaced the human.
Arianism - Jesus was a lesser, created being.
Docetism- Jesus was divine, but only seemed to be human.
Donatism- Validity of sacraments depends on character of the minister.
Gnosticism - Dualism of good and bad and special knowledge for salvation.
Kenosis - Jesus gave up some divine attributes while on earth.
Modalism - God is one person in three modes.
Monarchianism - God is one person.
Monophysitism- Jesus had only one nature: divine.
Nestorianism - Jesus was two persons.
Patripassionism - The Father suffered on the cross
Pelagianism - Man is unaffected by the fall and can keep all of God's laws.
Socinianism - Denial of the Trinity. Jesus is a deified man.
Tritheism - the Trinity is really three separate gods.
Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
As for the tension, I don't see what the other verses have to do with how the Holy Spirit is caused to exist... After all, the Holy Spirit sent the Son inside the Virgin's womb, but we don't say that the Son is begotten of the Spirit! "begotten" and "proceed" have to do with the cause for their existence and not with Christ's human birth or the Spirit's being sent to men...

---

The Holy Spirit did not send the Son. The wording is "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit," (Matthew 1) and "“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1).

But I see your point about "proceeds" meaning that the ultimate origin is in the Father, even if it is governed by the Son. This helps me understand Saint Bertelin's point as well.

According to my theology, the Father is simply the Divine Love, the invisible interior divine that is beyond all human understanding. This is the origin of all things, and so it makes sense that this is what begets the Son, and is also the origin of the Holy Spirit. The Son is the Divine Truth as it interacts with and is made accessible to humanity - so it is both the Logos, the means of creation, and what was Incarnated. The Holy Spirit is the divine activity with humanity - whose origin is the Divine Love but comes to us only by means of the Son, the Divine Truth. Needless to say, the filioque is not an issue with us.

In any case, I guess that what you are saying about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, though sent by the Son, lines up with my own theology.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
In that verse, the neutral form of the word one is used, and not the masculine form.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Then why does Paul says in so many places "God and Jesus"? If they are one person, then he wouldn't have said "and". Why does John say "the Word was [in the beginning] with God"? How can He be with God if He is that God?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
It's not a repetition, because a different form of the word "God" is used in the Greek text.

---

quote:

---

Revelation 11:15“The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Plus, if the Word is the Father, there would be no need to say that the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses. It would have said that the Lord appeared to Moses.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Alfa and Omega refers to Christ. It is His name in the Revelation and that's why peacocks were used as symbols for Jesus in antiquity (peacock=TAO in ancient Greek=an acronym for Alfa & Omega)

---

quote:

---

Isaiah 44:6 “ Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘ I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

---

quote:

---

Exodus 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before Me.
Deuteronomy 4:39 Therefore know this day, and consider it in your heart, that the LORD Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other.
1 Kings 8:60 that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God; there is no other.
Isaiah 44:6 “ Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘ I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.
Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other; There is no God besides Me.
Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: “ I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Isaiah 45:21 There is no other God besides Me, A just God and a Savior; There is none besides Me. Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.
Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me,
Joel 2:27 Then you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel: I am the LORD your God And there is no other. My people shall never be put to shame.
Mark 12:32 There is one God, and there is no other but He.
Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
1 Corinthians 8:4 There is no other God but one.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
When the Son says he is the Alpha and the Omega, we understand that He is not speaking in terms of persons, but in terms of natures. His nature is the true divinity, and since the Father is of the same nature, He is true God as well.

He says that after Him there is no other. You think the term person is implied. No other person. My understanding is that the term nature is implied. No other divine nature exists but Jesus' divinity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Note that we do not reason the trinity from the scriptures. We get the trinity from our experience of God as He is revealed to us and we can show that this understanding exists in the bible as well, since the writers also experienced God that way. It's in the bible because this is our experience; we don't reason our faith out of texts.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
I spoke of Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria because their theology was proclaaimed in the first and in the third, fourth, fifth and sixth ecumenical councils respectively. However, the Kappadocean fathers were also mentioned. So, it's not just an a characteristic of Alexandrian thought.

---

quote:

---

Starting from Justin the Martyr, no, starting from Paul, the Lord of Glory has been identified with Jesus. He is the one who uttered the Shema in the Old Testament; not the Father. It is He the One that reveals in Himself the Father, because He is the image of the Father and the radiance of His hypostasis.

---

quote:

---

You say the Jews worshipped God the Father. We speak of God as the Father, because He is the Father of the Son. If one does not accept the Son, then one does not accept the Father as well. So, they do not worship the hypostasis of the Father, although, because of our monarchy we can refer their worship to the Father. their vision of God remains unclear, although people like Moses and Abraham did have a clear view of God.

---

quote:

---

But the Shema, if I remember correctly, was said by Jesus before the Incarnation, and not by the Father! Therefore "God" in the Shema does not mean "one divine person" or else the divinity of the Father would be denied!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
The idea comes, I think, from what Jesus said about Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
]I believe that in the broad sense the Cappadocean fathers were also Alexandrene.

---

quote:

---

The Jews certainly worship God. God, as used in the New Testament, means the same as it means in the Old.

---

quote:

---

Whatever is the Christian claim that there is only one God, it must be understood in a sense that does not contradict the Jewish claim.

---

quote:

---

The Christian belief in the Trinity supplements but does not annul the Jewish confession.

---

quote:

---

If we take 'God' in the Shema to mean anything other than 'a divine existent' then we make a nonsense of it.

---

quote:

---

A problem here: in Greek one can use 'anthropos' to mean either an individual existent, or the nature in a platonic way. In English, it is not acceptable.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
The idea comes, I think, from what Jesus said about Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

---

Pardon me for saying that, but this is what the great heresiarchs did in antiquity.

The Orthodox fathers and saints and confessors and martyrs had personal experience of what they were talking about. They knew from intimate face-to-face experience the Trinity and they tried to guide others towards that experience.

---