The Trinity and Light

[Paidion]

Hi Homer,

John 1:18 in this ancient manuscript speaks of "the only-begotten God" rather than "the only-begotten Son" as some of the later manuscripts have it.

Sounds a bit Trinitarian!

I get it! Trinitarianly speaking, before all ages God begat Himself!

[jriccitelli]

I get it, Paidion speaking: God gave birth to a baby.

God does not literally give birth to babies, or anything. No Hebrew or Christian writer expresses such a thought (yet on the other hand, Mormons do, but they believe god is a man, and at least they have the decency to give credit to the Gods wives also). So do you believe this is speaking metaphorically and anthropomorphically, or literally? It is one or the other.

You make it like our position is a joke. Yet, your thinking leads you to believe in two gods.

Paidion, the disciples did not decide to rethink God, and come up with 'a new god' besides the One God that God Himself, scripture Moses and The Prophets declared to be The Only One. There is no way to add another God to Hebrew belief, yet that is what you want to do.

The passage speaks of God whom no one has seen, and the one coming from God, is God, makes God known.
God whom no one has seen and the one coming from God God makes God known (no commas).
Or the begotten one coming from God, is God... no matter how you put the words together, no matter what order, it says the same thing; Jesus came from God, God, who was in the Father, has made God known.
The invisible God has one from within Himself who has made Him known.
Nothing has seen God - The Monogenes - Theos - in God
The invisible God - The Only Begotten - Theos - the one being in the bosom of the Father.
Nothing has seen God, yet One Only, Theos, existing in the Father, has made God known.
Nothing has seen God, yet One Only, Theos, I am existing, in the Father, has made God known.
there is a no way to remove theos from being bookended by Jesus, it's like: The invisible God, Jesus, God, Jesus, has made God known.

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

Since you posted here, I'll assume you missed my question to you on the other thread. Could you respond please? Thanks.

Regards, Brenden.

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=5183

[dizerner]

I'd have no problem describing it as "God begat Himself before all ages" (For the Son and Spirit)

[Paidion]

Here are some of those in the early centuries who testify to the begetting of the Son:

Jesus the Son of God:
I emerged out of the Father and have come into the universe. (John 16:28)
ἐξηλθον ἐκ του πατρος και ἐληλυθα ἐις τον κοσμον

ἐξηλθον-exālthon—"came out of", or "emerged." The prefix ἐξ means "out." The root word "ηλθον" means "came" or sometimes "went."
ἐκ του πατρος—"out of the father." Notice there are two "outs"—one as the prefix of ἐξηλθον and the other the preposition ἐκ (out).

κοσμον—the nominative form is "κοσμος" (cosmos) which means "orderly arrangement" and can refer to the universe or to the world or the world system. It can even mean "adornment" (1 Peter 3:3). In John 16:28 it may mean "world" since in the next chapter it surely means "world" (John 17:18).

Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.):
Chapter LXI—Dialogue with Trypho

“I shall give you another testimony, my friends,” said I, “from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave(Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me, when He speaks by Solomon the following: ‘If I shall declare to you what happens daily, I shall call to mind events from of old, and review them. The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works. From of old He established me in the beginning, before He had made the earth, and before He had made the deeps, before the springs of the waters had issued forth, before the mountains had been established. Before all the hills He begets me. God made the country, and the desert, and the highest inhabited places under the sky. When He made ready the heavens, I was along with Him, and when He set up His throne on the winds: when He made the high clouds strong, and the springs of the deep safe, when He made the foundations of the earth, I was with Him arranging. I was that in which He rejoiced; daily and at all times I delighted in His countenance, because He delighted in the finishing of the habitable world, and delighted in the sons of men. Now, therefore, O son, hear me. Blessed is the man who shall listen to me, and the mortal who shall keep my ways, watching daily at my doors, observing the posts of my ingoings. For my outgoings are the outgoings of life, and [my] will has been prepared by the Lord. But they who sin against me, trespass against their own souls; and they who hate me love death.' ”

The Original Nicene Creed 325 A.D. :

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, only begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father...

The Nicene Creed in the original form was accepted by the Trinitarians of 325 A.D. Later Trinitarians changed "begotten before all ages" to "eternally begotten." The later Trinitarians realized that the original wording was inconsistent with Trinitarianism.

[jriccitelli]

We have gone through this before Paidion, and again no one in church history believes the term begotten means God gave literal birth to Jesus, creating two individuales, as in and then there were two Gods. We understand He either was in God as in being God, or became the Son as in being 'declared' the Son, no where does it describe two gods. Jesus was declared Lord, and One God is all the disciples and Israel knew.

You on the other hand have two gods, still.

[dizerner]

Paidion, thank you for again quoting that quote from Justin Martyr, I enjoy reading it and a lot of early church fathers. I particularly liked this part:

"we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled."

I picture it the exact same way. All the attributes and qualities of the Father are immediately possessed by the Son as well, and that includes being uncreated. Generated, but not created. I do think, though, that Justin Martyr's exposition could be even greater expanded in his understanding, if he saw that the personification of Wisdom, also generated as the first of God's works, and the Greek feminine Sophia, which wisdom is described as the entity speaking, calling and striving with human souls, and also the person who teaches, instructs and warns, is in very actuality, the Holy Spirit. Thus a beautiful and complete picture of the Trinity is intricately woven and present throughout all of Scripture! To be honest I believe stronger and more clearly since entering into these discussions on this forum just one year ago, and have all the posters here to thank.

[dizerner]

Some cool information on the grammar and function of the Spirit:

Is There a Question About the Gender of the Holy Spirit? [taken from : http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume3/spirit.htm]

In my graduate Semitics program at UCLA, one of the languages I had to study was Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic written with rounded letters reminiscent of modern Arabic. Syriac was the language of people living in northern Mesopotamia, from at least 300 BC until the time Arabic became dominant in the region, around 1000 AD. Most of the Syriac documents available today were produced by a Monophysite branch of Christianity, today known as the Syrian Orthodox Church (monophysitism is the belief that Christ had but one nature). One striking puzzlement of the texts, at least to me, was the constant reference to the Holy Spirit as "she". I was aware, of course, that in Aramaic (and hence in the dialect known as Syriac) the natural gender of the word "spirit" was feminine; however, I was surprised to discover that this accident of grammar had resulted in a whole theology constructed around the femininity of the third person of the Godhead.

An example of Syriac theology is found in the apocryphal Acts of Thomas; it is usually assumed that this particular work was influenced by speculative gnostic Judaism because it contains the notion, that associated with God was a wisdom, or creative power - a spirit - which was feminine. In an invocation accompanying baptism, Thomas calls for the Holy Spirit:

Come, holy name of Christ that is above every name;
Come, power of the Most High and perfect compassion;
Come, thou highest gift;
Come, compassionate mother;
Come, fellowship of the male;
Come, thou (f.) that dost reveal the hidden mysteries;
Come, mother of seven houses, that thy rest may be in the eighth house.
(Acts of Thomas 2:27)

Come, silence that dost reveal the great deeds of the whole greatness;
Come thou that dost show forth the hidden things
And make the ineffable manifest;
Holy Dove that bearest the twin young;
Come, hidden Mother;
Come, thou that art manifest in thy deeds
and dost furnish joy and rest for all that are joined with thee;
Come and partake with us in this Eucharist
Which we celebrate in thy name,
and in the love-feast in which we are gathered together at thy call.
(Acts of Thomas 5:50)

After reading such materials I decided that Syrian Orthodox Christianity was somewhat heretical (though perhaps only through an accident of grammar), and so I wanted nothing to do with Syriac literature. I would find something else on which to do my dissertation. Then came the Spring of 1986. I was teaching advanced Hebrew, and I had decided to take the class through the book of Judges. As we read along, I noticed something odd about Judges 3:10:

The Spirit of Yahweh came upon Caleb's younger brother...

In English, this passage from Judges doesn't appear startling, but in Hebrew something strange leapt out at me: "came upon" was a third person FEMININE verb, indicating it's subject "Spirit" was being understood as a feminine noun. Hebrew is not like Aramaic in its use of the word "spirit". While the word is exclusively feminine in Aramaic, in Hebrew it is sometimes masculine. Therefore, the question that came to mind was why had the author of Judges chosen here to make the Spirit of Yahweh feminine, when he could just as easily have made it masculine? Oh well. I just shrugged my shoulders and went on, not overly concerned. Occasionally, I thought, one finds something inexplicable in the Bible: no big deal. But then came Judges 6:34. Again, "Spirit of Yahweh" was feminine. At this point I decided to consult the concordance. Much to my surprise, every occurrence of "Spirit of Yahweh" in Judges is feminine. As I pondered that, I recalled Genesis 1:2, the first occurrence of "Spirit of God" in the Bible, and realized to my shock that it too is feminine. Back to the concordance. Out of 84 OT uses of the word "spirit", in contexts traditionally assumed to be references to the Holy Spirit, 75 times it is either explicitly feminine or indeterminable (due to lack of a verb or adjective). Only nine times can "spirit" be construed as masculine, and in those cases it is unclear that it is a reference to God's Holy Spirit anyway. (Please see Appendix 3 for a complete list and detailed discussion of the usages.)

The New Testament references to the Holy Spirit are not helpful for conclusively deciding on the gender of the Holy Spirit, since "spirit" in Greek is neuter, and so is referred to as "it" by the New Testament writers. The conclusion of all this is that our traditional assumption of a masculine Spirit is questionable; in fact, the evidence seems overwhelming that the Spirit should be viewed as "She", which does seem to make sense, since the other two members of the Godhead are labeled "Father" and "Son".

What are the theological implications of a feminine Holy Spirit? There are four:

• A feminine Holy Spirit clarifies how women can also be said to be created in the "image of God". It has long been recognized that he Godhead must include some feminine aspects, since Genesis 1:26-27 explicitly states that both men and women were created in God's image.

• A feminine Holy Spirit explains the identity of the personified wisdom in Proverbs 8:12-31

Some commentators have tried to tie this personification of wisdom to the idea of Christ as divine "Word" [Gk. logos]. Unfortunately for this theory, the genders of the words in question get in the way. The gender of the word "wisdom" is feminine, and is therefore personified as a woman. This makes a direct identification of "wisdom" with "Christ" virtually impossible. Other commentators have pictured "wisdom" as a created being, like an angel; better have been those who argue that the personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8 is simply a literary device, without objective reality.

[However I would add, notice in Sirach the feminine Wisdom receives the praise of God:

Wisdom shall praise her own self, and shall be honoured in God, and shall glory in the midst of her people, and shall open her mouth in the churches of the most High, and shall glorify herself in the sight of his power, and in the midst of her own people she shall be exalted, and shall be admired in the holy assembly. And in the multitude of the elect she shall have praise, and among the blessed she shall be blessed, saying: I came out of the mouth of the most High, the firstborn before all creatures (Sirach 24:1-5)]

However, if the Holy Spirit is feminine, then the identification is relatively easy: Genesis 1:2 pictures the Spirit of God hovering [like a mother bird on a nest] over the deep, active in creating the world, just as Proverbs describes. Both the Old and New Testament connect the idea of teaching and imparting wisdom with the function of the Holy Spirit (Ex. 31:3; 35:31; Acts 6:3; Ephesians 1:17; Luke 12:12; and John 14:25-26).

• The third benefit of recognizing the femininity of the Holy Spirit is that it explains the subservient role that the Spirit plays. The Bible seems to indicate that the Spirit does not speak for itself or about itself; rather the Spirit only speaks what it hears. The Spirit is said to have come into the world to glorify Christ (See John 16:13-14 and Acts 13:2). In contrast, it should be noted that the Scripture represents both the Father and Son speaking from and of themselves.

• Finally, a feminine Holy Spirit, with a Father and Son as the rest of the Trinity, may help explain why the family is the basic unit of human society.

[Jose]

"we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled."

I fail to see how this doesn't result in two separate fires, and consequently, two separate gods. It's unavoidable under any paradigm.

[Paidion]

I fail to see how this doesn't result in two separate fires, and consequently, two separate gods. It's unavoidable under any paradigm.

This picture DOES indicate two individual fires, and thus two individual divine Beings are also indicated. One can call this "two Gods", and such appellation would be correct in that sense. Yet, Jesus called the Father "the only true God" and so in the sense of "true God" there is only One—the Father. But since the Father begat the Son before all ages, the Son is of the same essence (the same "fire") as the Father, and so is fully divine, just as divine as the Father. Even Arius in his letter to Eusebius, referred to the Son as "fully God." Arius certainly didn't mean that the Son WAS the Father, but that being begotten by the Father, He was of the same essence, and therefore fully divine. As the early creeds put it: "Begotten not created." If you create a painting, the painting is quite unlike you. But when you beget a son, your son is of the same essence as you (human essence) and is fully human as you are.

In Papyrus 66, copied around 150 A.D., John 1:17 refers to Jesus as "the only-begotten God." Some of the early Christians also referred to Jesus as "God", and the Father as the "unbegotten God." Heb 1:3 refers to the Son as "the exact imprint of [the Father's] essence." So Jesus is another divine Individual EXACTLY like the Father, and in the sense of divinity equal to the Father, but positionally subservient to the Father.

In the New Testament, "the only true God" is usually designated with the article before the word "God." Without the article, the word "God" can refer to the divine essence. In John 1:1 "The logos was with the God" and "the logos was God-stuff." No article before "God" and the word "God" placed before the verb. A similar arrangement in the sentence "God is love". The word "love" is placed before the verb to inicate that love is the kind of thing that God is. Similarly in John 1:1, "God" is the kind of thing the logos is.

I think this is the sense in which, if you've seen Jesus, you've seen the Father. He is the exact imprint of the Father's essence. I might say to you, "I am going to show you two pictures of myself." I pull out of my pocket a picture, hold it in my left hand and show you. "Nice picture," you comment. Then I pull out of another pocket a picture, hold it in my right hand and show you. You look at it and say, "That's the same picture!" Indeed it is another copy of the first picture. "No," I reply. "Look. There are two pictures: one in my left hand and one in my right." So what are they? Two different pictures? Or the "same" picture? In one sense they are two, and in another they are one and the same. But if you've seen one picture, you've seen the other—so to speak. So it is with the Father and the Son. They are two divine Individuals, but if you've seen One, you've seen the Other.