Athanasian Creed

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Apostles' Creed

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

5. The third day he rose again from the dead:

6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:

9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:

10. The forgiveness of sins:

1l. The resurrection of the body:

12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

AMEN!!!

That's Christianity 101 as far as I am concerned.

I actually confess/speak out that creed as part of my prayers.

[Sam]

or


I believe in one God who has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and His name is Jesus.


that's a little more condensed but it doesn't cover some of the other stuff in The Apostles' Creed.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Sam

AMEN!!!

That's Christianity 101 as far as I am concerned.

I actually confess/speak out that creed as part of my prayers.

Originally Posted by Sam

or


I believe in one God who has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and His name is Jesus.


that's a little more condensed but it doesn't cover some of the other stuff in The Apostles' Creed.

Amen. My thoughts as well.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Are you still trying to maintain that Isaiah 9:6, should be interpreted as "everlasting Father?" I though we Oneness people gave up on that long ago when the preponderance of evidence showed it to be a faulty rendering of the KJV.

What? Are you kidding? It is the correct translation. And if "Father of Eternity" WAS the true translation that in no way lessens the force of Oneness doctrine. If anything it would MAGNIFY the truth.

[Michael The Disciple]

Pelathais

That is at least the idea behind "the doctrine of the Eternal Son." They ("modern Trins") believe that Jesus (the Eternal Son) was eternally begotten of the Father. That is, the Eternal Son was begotten "before all worlds."

Then it is just a matter of semantics between them and the Arians. Arians believe Jesus was begotten before the worlds. They believe he is the Creator of the worlds. God used him they say as the channel through which he worked.

Pelathais

Many Trinitarians, however, believe that the "pre-Bethlehem" Jesus Christ wasn't "the Eternal Son," but rather, He was the Logos; the Word of God. It was the Logos that was "made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father" and not "the Eternal Son" (for which I cannot quote a verse).

This is the true understanding of the Godhead. However Trins that hold this like Walter Martin although rejecting the doctrine of an eternal son believe that the Logos was a separate and distinct person from the Father. To me that still multiplies God and makes him more than one.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Then it is just a matter of semantics between them and the Arians. Arians believe Jesus was begotten before the worlds. They believe he is the Creator of the worlds. God used him they say as the channel through which he worked.

It's really more than "semantics." Arians, as you have pointed out, say He was "begotten before the worlds..." Trinitarians say that He was "eternally begotten..." Two different things. "Eternally begotten" is intended to convey the idea that "the Son" has ALWAYS been "proceeding from the Father." That is, "the Son" is as eternal as the Father." Arians would never go for that.

And, Trinitarians hold that "the Son" is as much Deity as "the Father" is. That is something that divides the two groups - historically at times, it has violently divided them.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

This is the true understanding of the Godhead. However Trins that hold this like Walter Martin although rejecting the doctrine of an eternal son believe that the Logos was a separate and distinct person from the Father. To me that still multiplies God and makes him more than one.

Yes, it does. At least in my opinion it does. However, I find it interesting that Walter Martin, after years of tangling with Jehovah Witnesses ("Arians") found it needful to amend the "traditional" wording and phrase things in a manner closer to our position. That is a hopeful sign, I think. If we can keep the discussion going, more and more people will see the inadequacies and even the mistaken notions that have crept into Christian doctrine and they may also amend their statements.

Of course we have to be just as careful ourselves. For example, Isaiah 9:6, is actually a colloquialism. The Hebrew word אביעד contains the two stem words "awb" - ("father") and "ad" ("eternity).

The King James translators (and Oneness adherents) were mistaken to think that this was a reference to the "Person" known in Christian Trinitarian theology as "The Father." We rather gleefully have tried to make much out of this confusion, but it really hasn't been helpful in the debate.

In the Hebrew Bible, this phrase is actually a single word - אביעד or "aviad" in modern Hebrew and "abiad" in Biblical Hebrew. This word is a euphemism akin to the Arabic phrases "Mother of All Battles" or "Father of the Sword" (Hebrew and Arabic are cognates of one another). The one called "The father..." of something is said to be skillful in it's use or even "the greatest" in the use of whatever they are said to be "the father..." of (or "mother of...").

Thus, Isaiah 9:6, isn't saying that the "son" who is to be born would be the Person known as "The Father" in Christian theology. It is saying that this "son" would have the attributes of "everlasting" or "eternity." This "son" would literally be "eternal."

... uhm.

[Michael The Disciple]

Well The Bible I have from the Jewish Publication Society renders it Everlasting Father. The Stearns Jewish Bible renders it "Eternal Father" on page 1561. If Yeshua is the Mighty God then obviously he is the Eternal Father.

Both the Old and New Testament teach there is ONE GOD THAT IS THE FATHER.
2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? Malachi 2:10

8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Cor. 8:4-6

So it is very much in the spirit of what God is trying to teach us that God is the Father. Oneness doctrine rightly accepts that if Jesus is GOD that he is the Father. Anything else is false doctrine.

So indeed it is NOT Oneness believers who have been discredited by scripture but rather all other faiths who either minimize who the Messiah is or teach God is more than one.

[Michael The Disciple]

Pelathais

Thus, Isaiah 9:6, isn't saying that the "son" who is to be born would be the Person known as "The Father" in Christian theology. It is saying that this "son" would have the attributes of "everlasting" or "eternity." This "son" would literally be "eternal."

Your version is exactly what the Trins teach. Jesus is the Eternal Son. Scripture teaches he is the Eternal Father and the begotten son.

Also according to that what happened to FATHER OF ETERNITY? I find nothing in that phrase that weakens the truth that Messiah is the Father. It only strongly reinforces it!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Your version is exactly what the Trins teach. Jesus is the Eternal Son. Scripture teaches he is the Eternal Father and the begotten son.

Also according to that what happened to FATHER OF ETERNITY? I find nothing in that phrase that weakens the truth that Messiah is the Father. It only strongly reinforces it!

I was straining to be a bit coy with the earlier post. My understanding is that "the Son" had a beginning and thus, is not eternal.

Luke 1:32: When the child was born He was "called the son of the Highest." The angel's words, "He shall be called..." indicates a temporal beginning.

Psalm 2:7: "This day..." also indicates a time within our present temporal continuum and thus is "outside of eternity." The Psalmist here is obviously referring to himself (see also Psalm 89:20-27... "I will make him my firstborn..."). However...

Acts 13:33: Paul applies Psalm 2:7 to Jesus Christ and is clearly indicating that the "This day..." of the Psalm is the day in which Jesus was raised from the dead.

So, even though "the day" of "the Son's" begetting appears to have multiple applications, all of those applications fall within the realm of "time" and not eternity.

You are correct in pointing out that there are many sources which are in agreement with the "Everlasting Father" translation. However, even as you have pointed out, there are many which prefer the "Father of Eternity" translation. And, the "Father of Eternity" partisans generally represent the more recent scholarship on this issue.

For a Trinitarian, to say that "The Son" Who created all things and by Whom all things were created is also the "Source" of eternity does nothing to weaken the Trinitarian case. And to say "Father of Eternity" is the same as to say "the Source of eternity." In this application it is not an identification of the "The Son" as being the same "Person" and the Father.