Jesus/God the same?

I haven't read through this thread yet. Just jumping in and noting something.You listed the Nicene Creed here as representing modern Christian orthodoxy. In your next post you referred to it as an answer to Arianism.The Nicene Creed was an answer to Arianism. It does not, however, represent the beliefs of Western Christians, despite the fact that so many churches quote it every week.Note that it says, "We believe in one God, the Father...We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God."This was typical belief until the Athanasian/Arian battles of the later 4th century. The coequal, coeternal, persons of the one God didn't exist at the time of Nicea.Nicea solved the Arian controversy by asserting, "Begotten, not made" and "one in substance with the Father," not by asserting that Jesus was God. Arius believed that God created Jesus ex nihilo (from nothing) as he did everything and everyone else. His bishop, Alexander, and most others believed that Jesus was the Logos of God who was born from God in some unexplainable fashion. Before his birth, he was inside of God as God's Logos, so it is not proper to say "there was a time when the Son was not."So the real issues at Nicea are found in "begotten, not made" and "one in substance with the Father" rather than one in substance with the rest of creation. The Nicene creed really doesn't represent modern orthodoxy. It's strange western churches don't quote the Athanasian creed, which does say what they believe, rather than the Nicene creed. Both halves of your statement are true, but uninformed. It does eloquently define the common early church understanding of the Trinity, which proclaims one God, the Father!If I may quote Tertullian, who is credited with coining the term Trinity (although Triad was used previously by Athenagoras):

quote:

---

If the Father and the Son are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father "God," and invoke Jesus Christ as "Lord."[7] But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him "God," as the same apostle says: "Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever."[8] For I should give the name of" sun" even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam.

---

and...

quote:

---

For before all things God was alone--being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason...I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.

---

He goes on to say that when God said, "Let there be light," that is when the Word left him (like many other fathers, he applied "My heart has uttered a good word" to the birth of the Son) and became separate and his Son. But I'll save you quoting all that. The above is from Against Praxeas chapters 13 and 5.

I noticed that what was remarkably lacking from your response was any attention to the fact that the Nicene Creed says, "We believe in one God, the Father...and in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God."My explanations explained why the creed says that. It simply lines up with what all the fathers said prior to Nicea. Your explanations don't explain why the creed says that. Your explanations would make us wonder why the creed doesn't say something different (like "We believe in one God, consisting of the Father, Son, and Spirit").Athenagoras, in AD 177, explained the issue of substance, as did Eusebius of Caesarea in his letter back to Caesaea. Everything God created from nothing was made of matter by definition (even spiritual beings). Whatever God was made of is a different substance than matter. The early church believed that the Son was made from the substance of God (which is whatever "stuff" God is made of), and he wasn't created from matter. Arius believe the Son was created from nothing, and thus was of the same substance as us and the angels.It is for this reason the creed says one substance (homoousios) with the Father, and for the exact same reason it says "true God from true God." It is referring to substance. It is not disagreeing with its own words that "there is one God, the Father."

Well, you don't have to suspect anymore. The Pre-Nicene fathers regularly equated Jesus and Wisdom of the Proverbs. Here, let me get you a couple references:Justin Martyr, c. A.D. 150: "I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures that God begat before all creatures a certain rational power from himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom..." "The Word of Wisdom, who is himsolf this God begotten of the Father of all things and Word and Wisdom and Power...speaks by Solomon the following: '...The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works...'Justin quotes the whole passage from Prov. 8 there, where Lady Wisdom is speaking, and then quotes most of it again as applying to the Son in ch. 128. (Oh the above is from Dialogue with Trypho 61.)Irenaeus (AD 185) is a little different, saying, "The Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father, and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was present with him anterior to [before] all creation. He declares by Solomon, "God by Wisdom founded the earth and by understanding he established the sky..." and again, "The Lord created me the begginig of his ways in his work. He set me up from everlasting...[he quotes that whole section of Prov 8 here]." There is therefore one God, who by the Word and Wisdom created and arranged all things (Against Heresies IV:20:3,4)Athenagoras (AD 177) also seems to make Wisdom the Holy Spirit: "The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. 'The Lord,' it says, 'made me the beginning of his ways to his works.'"Theophilus (AD 168) sort of ties those together: "God, then, having his own Word internal within his own bowels, begat him, emitting him along with is own Wisdom before all things. He is called Governing Principle, because he rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by him. He, then, being Spirit of God and Governing Principle and Wisdom and Power of the Highest, came down upon the prophets and through them spake of the creation of the world and all other things...Therefore he speaks thus by Solomon, "When he prepared the heavens, I was there (To Autolycus II:10)."Anyway, I could go on and on, but this is too long already. Proverbs 8 and Wisdom's words there were overtly applied to Jesus (or the Spirit) by the fathers, beginning with the apologists.For those who don't know, although I suspect doctrbill does, gender doesn't work the same in other languages as it does in English. Coffee is masculine in German, while the cup it goes in is feminine, and the young, single lady who holds that cup is neuter. A house is feminine in spanish. Wisdom is feminine in Greek and Hebrew (I'm guessing concerning Hebrew, that it has to be feminine to be referred to the way it is in Proverbs, whil I know it's feminine in Greek), so it's referred to as female. There is not a gender problem in applying Wisdom, even though referred to as feminine, to Jesus, even though he was a male. That's purely a problem to English speakers, no one else.

No, I don't think. Good grief. Why would I think that? I only believe in one God.Did the attributes of Wisdom in Proverbs come from a previous religion that had many gods and goddesses? Maybe. I don't think it's likely, though, because Proverbs was written down by a monotheistic religion, and there's nothing in those passages that require Wisdom to be a god or goddess. Everything said about Wisdom applies quite well to wisdom in and of itself without it needing to be from some goddess.And the fact is, Wisdom is a feminine word, so the pronouns used about it must be feminine, too--in Hebrew, anyway. The translator would be just as accurate using "it" rather than "she" in those passages. That's not sexist, that's simply factual. I don't think this is true at all. The earliest Christians read the Scriptures symbolically all the time. Proverbs was part of their Scriptures. How could they not apply a passage like Proverbs 8 to the Son of God. Gender was absolutely no issue to them. They knew wisdom was a feminine word, and they would not therefore have assumed that wisdom was a female being. That's a purely English convention. They read "it" where you read "she." They had no way of knowing that you or I would think the passage said "she."

I'm not your typical Christian. I'm a new species. Evolution and all, you know.I believe in one God, the Father, although a favorite author of mine, Tertullian (one of the Catholic fathers) didn't mind saying he believed in two Gods, and Justin used to say there is one unbegotten God and one begotten God.Either way, one God or two, because even I believe God has a Son, obviously my way of thinking wouldn't be prone toward feeling the need for making room for goddesses. You're right. I can't argue with that. I don't think this follows. I'm not talking about assumption; I'm just acknowledging that their work is not the only thing we know about them. Dismissing what we know about authorship, time of authorship, what the nation was like, etc., is not a good idea, and I don't think you're suggesting that, but I wasn't, either.I don't think Proverbs gives any internal or external indications that it's thoughts come from thoughts about goddesses. Yes, that's exactly what I mean. I, and the Pre-Nicene Christians, believed some things about Jesus already. Proverbs lines up nicely with those things, and responding to those similarities, we apply them to him, even suggesting they are prophecy.If you don't begin with things you already believe about Jesus, looking at Proverbs only, then Proverbs looks like Wisdom being personified, a very typical prose and poetry device, taught in high school even, not necessarily implying thoughts of a goddess at all. It doesn't. Did you think I was only saying that out of some opposition to goddesses because they're female? I'm married to a female. I have two incredibly wonderful female daughters. I like females. If I had a choice of George or Barbara Bush for president, I'd surely vote for Barbara. I can't wait for the first female president. I'm terribly curious to see who it will be.I simply don't think Proverbs was meant to be about goddesses (or gods). I think it was simply personifying wisdom.I can't say it's impossible. You might be right. I just don't think there's any evidence that it's likely. LOL. In a sense, you're right, but I'm not backing down, because only in a sense. There in chapter 8, the writer definitely personifies Wisdom, and in chapter 8, and in other passages, an English writer should properly use he or she.However, you're missing my point. When you say, "You don't create such a character, an escort for Jehovah, and then call her an 'it,'" you are making a statement only an English speaker could make. Germany is giving in to the language influences of today, and they refer to Fraulein's and Maedchen's as "she." However, it can't have been more than a few decades since all Fraulein's would have been referred to as "it," the neuter pronoun. That wasn't sexist. It happened because of the "-lein" and the "-chen" at the end of the word. It required a neuter article and thus a neuter pronoun. No gender offense meant, and Frau's and Maed's were both feminine. A child, "Kind," in German, is still an it, whether male or female.I was just trying to point out that "she," linguistically, doesn't have to make Wisdom a female. And being alive doesn't mean you don't get called an "it," at least in German. It's only offensive to us. Pronouns don't carry the same gender connotations in other languages that they do in English. He had no choice, because Wisdom is a feminine word. That's my point. He wasn't necessarily making her female, just linguistically feminine in gender, and I'm trying to point out that's not the same thing. In German, if you want to personify coffee, then it would have to be a he. (Well, not have to, but it would make sense and be easier.) I'm not disagreeing. I'm simply trying not to put my English speaking prejudices and thoughts into my interpretation of a Hebrew text. Yes, partly on the basis of what I'm saying people do argue that God isn't necessarily male in sex, just masculine in linguistic gender. I don't agree with them, but I do agree that the language allows them their point.I want to add here that my whole comment about language and gender was a mere one sentence add on, in parentheses, at the end of a post. It was hardly something I was making a case about, just explaining why there was no gender problem in applying Prov 8 to Jesus, which is one of the main reasons my American Christian friends wouldn't even consider it. I would call them sexist. It sounds like you're making a point, though, and I feel really dense for not getting it.

That was a concise and reasonable setting out of your position. I'll just leave it at that.

If I can add something to your case. I'll have to go hunt it down for you when I have more time, maybe mid-week. But the early fathers accused the Jews of failing to canonize the apocryphal books because they prophesied too clearly about Jesus. The apocrypha is quoted extensively by the fathers. Clement of Alexandria is a good example.If this person is a JW, as your post indicates, then he can't just write off Clement and other fathers, because the JW's publish a defense of their view of the Father and Son that quotes those fathers heavily.And have you addressed the quite direct quote in Jude from 1 Enoch 1:9 (or 1 Enoch 2:1, depending on how the chapters are divided)? I realize that's not part of the Apocrypha, but references to Enoch abound. In fact, Jesus' story about Lazarus and the rich man describes hades exactly as First Enoch describes it, all the way down to the "great gulf." Since Jude, supposedly Jesus' brother, actually quotes First Enoch, it would follow that Jesus was referencing it, too.

They consider the whole book of Daniel deuterocanonical or just chapters 13 and 14? The Protestants only accept the first twelve chapters. The last two are the stories of Bel and the Dragon and, uh, I forget the ladies name. A couple of pretty cool stories, and it seems like a Catholic source would be more likely to refer to those two chapters/stories as deuterocanonical than the whole book, even though a lot of scholars (most? almost all?) would consider Daniel to be written much later than accepted by fundamentalists.