@rickgill –why are you saying “shared” ? cannot persons with non-identical essence have same name?–
Not when it comes to the name of the Lord. This is the ineffable name of god and is supposed to indicate that god exists of and from himself – I am that I am. When Jesus claims “I am” for himself he is not just claiming a name, he is claiming the meaning behind it, that he is the grounding of all being.
When the father, son and spirit share this name they share in the grounding of all being.
–the creed says they are of the same essence. names cannot tell you if x, y and z are of the same essence.–
ὁμοούσιον – the same essence – the same ousion – the word is derived from the greek for “being”, the name of god is derived from the same hebrew word. The name of god is describing his essence, he is the grounding of all being.
–was jesus baptized in johns name?–
no he wasn’t baptised in any name. Acts 19:4-5 “Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus. On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
–which verse?–
The father is “Lord of heaven and earth” Matthew 11:25. So the name of the father is the name of the Lord. Jesus “comes in the name of the Lord” Matthew 21:9.
All authority (therefore Lord) in heaven and earth is given to him. Matthew 28:18
Therefore “baptise in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit” means the name of the father is also the name of the son and the name of the holy spirit. They share the same name of the Lord. yahweh ehad usemow ehad, the lord only his name only.
@Stpehen –brenmcg in your reply to my question you’re really just saying that Athanasius rejected the views of Arius. Well, yeah. But what were the views of Arius that Athanasius rejected? What were they arguing about? Which view most nearly resembles that of Justin and the other subordinationists of the second century? Is Athanasius really saying what Paul or the gospel writers are saying?–
Well no I said Anthanasius agreed with the council of Nicea and disagreed with Arius. Arius believed the Son was a creation of god. That existed before the son and the son came into existence by an act of the father. He believed the Son was a lesser god than the father.
What Justin Martyr believed was that “the” ineffable God was the one who spoke to Moses in the bush, “the” God that revealed his name to Moses. He believed that the Jews mistakenly taught that it was the father who spoke but they were wrong and it was actually the Son.
The claim of Arius that the Son is a created lesser god than the father would be blasphemous to all the new testament writers who only believed in one God.
–. The idea of the Nicene Trinity is an utterly brilliant solution to a problem created by the church itself in interpreting Jesus. A solution that required centuries of thinking and was only at last made possible by a philosophical vocabulary provided through Middle Platonism.–
This is a fantasy interpretation of Nicea. The truth is that in the year 324 Christianity for the first time gained political control of the whole of the Roman empire. And in 325 a council was held of the most powerful bishops in the empire to give for the first time a legally binding definition of the faith. This definition was agreed to by over 99% (315/318) of the bishops in attendance. The claim that the doctrine of the trinity took until 325 to be fully developed is a false one – 325 is when it was given legal definition.
The Council of Nicaea was a showdown between the Emperor and a divided church. Divided in various ways. A large part of the bishops did not recognize the resurrection of the body, there were bishops who belonged to the Homoiousian alliance and stood in opposition to Arius, some of them recognized the Nicene Creed. Some signed the creed, then erased the signatures, and then signed again. The process took several decades.
“Not when it comes to the name of the Lord. This is the ineffable name of god and is supposed to indicate that god exists of and from himself – I am that I am.”
where do you get that from the verse in the dedicae?
” When Jesus claims “I am” for himself he is not just claiming a name, he is claiming the meaning behind it, that he is the grounding of all being.”
so you think the dedicae writers assumed johns understanding ?
can you show evidence for this.
you would expect the writers to be giving thanks repeatedly to all three distict persons had this been the case.
“When the father, son and spirit share this name they share in the grounding of all being.”
can you demonstrate from the greek of the dedicae that the employment of the word “lord” for the one who said “do not give to the dogs what is holy” is understood as “LORD” ?
“–the creed says they are of the same essence. names cannot tell you if x, y and z are of the same essence.–”
ὁμοούσιον – the same essence – the same ousion – the word is derived from the greek for “being”, the name of god is derived from the same hebrew word. The name of god is describing his essence, he is the grounding of all being.
what hebrew word?
do you mean the word for “lord” in the dedicae is derived from ὁμοούσιον?
9:5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs.
/
9:5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the being, for of a truth the being hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs.
did the being say , “give not that which is holy unto the dogs” ?
so since each person IS identical to the essence, then each person said “give not that which is holy unto the dogs” ?
–was jesus baptized in johns name?–
no he wasn’t baptised in any name. Acts 19:4-5 “Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus. On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
mark has jesus baptized by john. john baptized jesus without invoking any name?
–which verse?–
“The father is “Lord of heaven and earth” Matthew 11:25. So the name of the father is the name of the Lord. Jesus “comes in the name of the Lord” Matthew 21:9.”
quote:
25 At that time Jesus said, “I thank[a] you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.[b] 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
what were you saying about ὁμοούσιον again? does that sound like someone with the same essence? thats a controlled and instrumented being receiving things from his god. jesus does not have the SAME essencee as the father. you dont thank your own essence . you don’t receive things from your own essence.
“All authority (therefore Lord) in heaven and earth is given to him. Matthew 28:18
“
why did you add in “lord” ? there is nothing in matthew 28:18 which says that jesus ALREADY has the same essence as his father.
“Therefore “baptise in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit” means the name of the father is also the name of the son”
this is incorrect. there is nothing in the text which says that jesus has the same essence as the father. none of your quotations help you.
@rickgill
–where do you get that from the verse in the dedicae?–
its not from the didache, its from exodus 3
–so you think the dedicae writers assumed johns understanding ?–
I think the writer(s) of the didache had the same understanding as John, which was the same understanding as Matthew, Luke, Mark and the writer of exodus 3
–you would expect the writers to be giving thanks repeatedly to all three distict persons had this been the case.–
I dont expect anything from the writers
–can you demonstrate from the greek of the dedicae that the employment of the word “lord” for the one who said “do not give to the dogs what is holy” is understood as “LORD” ?–
well yes, the writer repeating quotes the old and new testament so its safe to assume the writers had the same understanding of “Lord” that you’d find in those texts.
–what hebrew word? do you mean the word for “lord” in the dedicae is derived from ὁμοούσιον?
No. The “name of the Lord” is taken from the new and old testaments. the “name of the lord” in the old testament is ehyeh or yahweh, or in greek ego eimi or ho on, all of which are derived from the hebrew or greek for “to be”. ousion is derived from the greek “to be” so its related to the “name of Lord” in the old/new testament
–so since each person IS identical to the essence, then each person said “give not that which is holy unto the dogs” ?–
each person is not identical to the essence – the didache is quoting Matthew here – it was Jesus who said give not that which is holy unto the dogs.
–mark has jesus baptized by john. john baptized jesus without invoking any name?–
Mark is just editing Matthew – neither Matthew nor Mark has John invoking any name in the baptism
–what were you saying about ὁμοούσιον again? does that sound like someone with the same essence? thats a controlled and instrumented being receiving things from his god–
the “things” he is receiving are “all things” – “everything” has been handed over to him. only “god” can have command over all things.
–why did you add in “lord” ?–
Because “authority” means to have command, to be a “Lord” who has “servants/slave”. Jesus is given “all” authority in heaven and earth which means he is “lord” of heaven and earth.
–this is incorrect. there is nothing in the text which says that jesus has the same essence as the father. none of your quotations help you.–
all of them do. the name of yahweh is a reference to his essence, his grounding of all being. Jesus has received this name from the father so they both share in this grounding of all being.
–where do you get that from the verse in the dedicae?–
–its not from the didache, its from exodus 3
what is the greek in the dedicae for “lord” ?
why are you forcing exodus 3 into “lord” in the didache?
–so you think the dedicae writers assumed johns understanding ?–
–I think the writer(s) of the didache had the same understanding as John, which was the same understanding as Matthew, Luke, Mark and the writer of exodus 3
where is your evidence? how the usage of “the lord” imply this? look at the text, jesus is the one who is subordinate to the father in the dedicae. thanks is given to the father. jesus is never given thanks the way the father is given thanks in the dedicae.
–you would expect the writers to be giving thanks repeatedly to all three distict persons had this been the case.–
–I dont expect anything from the writers
you are the one saying that it is the SAME ousia. how is the same ousia being subjected to something from the same ousia?
–can you demonstrate from the greek of the dedicae that the employment of the word “lord” for the one who said “do not give to the dogs what is holy” is understood as “LORD” ?–
–well yes, the writer repeating quotes the old and new testament so its safe to assume the writers had the same understanding of “Lord” that you’d find in those texts.
“lord” has been used for king davvid in the ot, right? jesus like david was subjected to the authority and will of the father, right?
–what hebrew word? do you mean the word for “lord” in the dedicae is derived from ὁμοούσιον?
–No. The “name of the Lord” is taken from the new and old testaments.
when is “”the LORD” ever subjected to his own will?
– the “name of the lord” in the old testament is ehyeh or yahweh,
no, it is “ihyeh asher ihyeh”
and this “ihyeh asher ihyeh” is never subjected to the will of another
where is your evidence that “ihyeh” is the same thing as “the lord” in the dedicae?
– or in greek ego eimi or ho on, all of which are derived from the hebrew or greek for “to be”. ousion is derived from the greek “to be” so its related to the “name of Lord” in the old/new testament
you need some kind of context to show that “lord” means “the lord” and you have provided nothing.
1. lord in ot = “adon”. 2. it can be used for humans or angels. 3. you know “lord” means God in “LORD” sence when God is differentianted from humans and angels. there is absolutely no scripture which says “you must only baptise in Gods name”
now in dedicae WHO is being thanked? the thanks the father is receiving is not what jesus is receving.
–so since each person IS identical to the essence, then each person said “give not that which is holy unto the dogs” ?–
-each person is not identical to the essence
then you are a polytheist since each person has an essense , i am sure the dedicae writer was not a polytheist.
– the didache is quoting Matthew here – it was Jesus who said give not that which is holy unto the dogs.
so then it is NOT “ousia” speaking or “the lord.”
unless by “lord” you mean gods servant .
–mark has jesus baptized by john. john baptized jesus without invoking any name?–
-Mark is just editing Matthew – neither Matthew nor Mark has John invoking any name in the baptism
so john used to perform baptisms without invoking any divine name?
–what were you saying about ὁμοούσιον again? does that sound like someone with the same essence? thats a controlled and instrumented being receiving things from his god–
–the “things” he is receiving are “all things” –
1. thats not even in the dedicae. 2. no “all ” does not mean every single thing. he is a receiver, you can’t be a receiver when your essence has everything.
–“everything” has been handed over to him. only “god” can have command over all things.
no where does it say that jesus had “command ” over all things in sense of having POWER over them.
there is a difference between AUTHORITY and unlimited power.
–why did you add in “lord” ?–
-Because “authority” means to have command, to be a “Lord” who has “servants/slave”.
thats not the same as having POWER over them. the father is the one who has power over them. jesus would still be subject to forces of natures.
-Jesus is given “all” authority in heaven and earth which means he is “lord” of heaven and earth.
no, AUTHORITY doee not mean HAVING UNLIMITED power over everything.
–this is incorrect. there is nothing in the text which says that jesus has the same essence as the father. none of your quotations help you.–
-all of them do. the name of yahweh is a reference to his essence,
so is an ESSENCE speaking in the dedicae or a Person ?
– his grounding of all being. Jesus has received this name from the father
AUthority is not identical to UNLIMITED power.
@rickgill –why are you forcing exodus 3 into “lord” in the didache?–
because the didache quotes from Exodus, and quotes commandments from exodus. So its legitimate to use the understanding of the lord from exodus when trying to understand the didache.
–where is your evidence? how the usage of “the lord” imply this? look at the text, jesus is the one who is subordinate to the father in the dedicae. thanks is given to the father. jesus is never given thanks the way the father is given thanks in the dedicae.–
the didache quotes Matthew’s account of Jesus and the canaanite woman – “for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.” So the didache understands Jesus as lord.
–where is your evidence that “ihyeh” is the same thing as “the lord” in the dedicae?–
the didache quotes the commandments of the lord from exodus and deuteronomy. So its legitimate to take the same understanding of the lord as you’ll find in those books.
–then you are a polytheist since each person has an essense , i am sure the dedicae writer was not a polytheist.–
Each person is “the Lord” in the didache, and the lord is god. so its trinitarianism, not polytheism
–thats not the same as having POWER over them. the father is the one who has power over them. jesus would still be subject to forces of natures.–
if he’s subject to the forces of nature then he wouldn’t have all authority in heaven and earth. “Everything” has been handed over to him by the father and all authority in heaven and earth has been given to him. This is the full power and authority of the Lord. This is Matthew’s understanding and the writer of the didache must be taken as having the same understanding as matthew as he quotes from him so often.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)