Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

[GWH]

@GWH, is it true that every verse has only one correct meaning?

Well, we know that in English one word can have many meanings, so it could be suggested that many words composing one sentence might have many meanings, but I would suggest that one sentence has one meaning with maybe many applications. Do you have a specific verse in mind for us to consider?

 

[Blue155]

Well, we know that in English one word can have many meanings, so it could be suggested that many words composing one sentence might have many meanings, but I would suggest that one sentence has one meaning with maybe many applications. Do you have a specific verse in mind for us to consider?

How about Matthew 18:20? That verse is often used to teach that even if there’s two or more gathered in worship, that Jesus is there, but then you have others who believe it’s concerning church discipline.

 

[GWH]

OK, I'll have to assume you haven't read what I've already stated. I have no preferred translation. If anything I'd try to choose one of the more literal ones, so NIV would not be my main choice.

I work from the Greek and have a few manuscripts as well as several English translations on screen at all times and have had for 2-3 decades. If I search in English, I'm most used to the NKJ because we used it in languages classes in seminary for 3 years. Before that I learned mainly from RBThieme who I saw you mention recently and he used the NAS, so I used that for some years.

During and after Greek training the Greek became my Text and as some say, all else is translation.

When teaching I'd take a sampling of what English translations were in the room and I'd try to highlight the many differences and compare the Greek to give anyone interested the appreciation that translation is not an exact science and many interpretational choices from Greek grammar, for one thing, are involved.

Your practice of using a few translations IMO is the better one if one has little or no understanding of Greek, though for some new students they may need some stability before being hit with how divided translation opinions are.

IMO any serious student should end up wondering what the original says and at another level, this ends up in manuscripts evidence and textual criticism. There are tools for identifying textual variants and in our time these tools provide information on manuscripts evidences and how choices have been made.

One of the things the NET notes do is provide some degree of information about manuscripts and translation choices as the link I provided shows.

As I hope you're seeing, this KJV issue is not just about manuscripts, but also about theological choices - is the NIV choice re: Deut22:28-29 "insane" or was it done with some reasoning from the Text? You ended up with an opinion and I doubt you consider yourself insane for doing so. Such is theology and at some point in my process I understood what an internal, let alone externally influenced battleground theology is and wondered what the heck I was doing getting deeper into it.

IMO this KJV debate is another theological distraction and some of its adherents are not much different than advocates and soldiers for various theological systems. Let's just look at each verse and if you want to bring out a manuscript matter in interpreting it, or a systematic approach, or whatever, please feel free to do so, and leave the ad hom and other provocations and fallacious arguments at the doorstep before entering.

I gleaned from what you stated ("it's best to look at a few to several English translations these days") that you use a few translations, but I inferred from your citing the NET that it might be your favorite. I now understand from your saying "I have no preferred translation. If anything I'd try to choose one of the more literal ones, so NIV would not be my main choice" that you have no one favorite, but you favor the more literal translations, which do not include the 1984 NIV, but apparently do include the NKJ, NAS and NET.

I could have sworn that RBT used the KJV during the time we attended his satellite church in 1976-78, because I thought he wasted time translating from the KJV to modern English (which might have been the NAS--not sure about that).

Anyway, although I am rather jealous of y'all who can read the original languages, yes, I have comforted myself with the realization that most of the time we can depend on y'all's translation and get on with the matter of interpretation, which involves theological choices or what I call hermeneutical harmonization using the gift of editing, which I like to think I have. As a result of doing that deeply, I have rather confident opinions about some doctrines, such as the Gospel kerygma per the NT and what I call the Propensity Principle per me, but only since joining CC have I encountered tulipists and Sabbatarians, prompting me to search the Scriptures diligently for more information about those topics.

And only since BH began posting on this thread had I encountered KJVists, so I have been considering what to think about that.

One of the issues I am clear about is the NT concern for unity, so I appreciate you resisting the temptation to join the ad hominem folks, or what I call playing verbal ping-pong, trolling and getting stuck in tar-babies--intending such descriptions to refer to fallacious arguments rather than to be insulting ad hominems. That is why I critique tulipism or hyper-Calvinism rather than refer to Calvinists or all of Reformed theology.

As a truthseeker I appreciate you double-checking me whenever you think I make a wrong statement, so please continue to do so.

 

[GWH]

When I say harsh, I mean cruel.

Yes, unjust rather than allowing cruel people to reap what they sow, which allowance is the love of righteousness.
No immoral equivalence, such as viewing killing to defend against murder as murder!

 

[GWH]

How about Matthew 18:20? That verse is often used to teach that even if there’s two or more gathered in worship, that Jesus is there, but then you have others who believe it’s concerning church discipline.

Oh, you cite one of the more problematic passages, akin to Matthew 21:22. These references to prayer should be compared with those in Matt. 6:10 and 26:39&42, after which one is confronted with the choice of believing God will do our will or we should agree with God's will. I think the latter is obviously correct. However, I also think harmonization of GW is correct, so my immediate question is "How can both be true?" (both-and)

Do you agree with my thinking and want to answer first?

 

[rewriter]

Thanks for your input. As you saw in my posts, I have also used multiple versions, but my knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is too limited to be able to read those. Which version do you prefer? Do you find any serious doctrinal differences between the KJV (the version I began with before getting a NEB in 1967) and the 1984 NIV (the version I was given at my ordination) for example?

The KJV originally included more works, such as 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit and the Wisdom of Solomon among others. Sometime in the mid 1800's, if I remember timing correctly, they dropped the questionable works. Reportedly, at the time ministers strongly objected to a truncated bible.

 

[rewriter]

I forgot to respond to your question about my preferences. As for my preference, NIV tends to be my default when writing scholarly work, if I use another I specifically cite it as a different version, KJV when I just want a pleasant read, New Jerusalem can occasionally offer insights, but as my French is no longer that good, from lack of consistent use, I tend to avoid it as in English it is a translation from the French which was a direct translation from the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. If I am preaching, I will use whatever version the congregation uses, this morning it was the New English. And then there are often insightful translations in various commentaries.

 

[rewriter]

Misinterpretations from the past don't validate them in the present. The early church fathers, despite their importance, didn't get everything right either.

However, you're missing the broader point that many people overlook. You may attempt to dismiss this single verse (though I haven't seen a convincing argument for why it should be dismissed), but this is about recognizing a consistent pattern of problematic changes, not just one isolated instance.

I've documented 21 verses that weaken the deity of Christ. There are additional changes that dilute teachings on fasting, the blood atonement, and substitutionary atonement. There's even a pattern of alterations that undermine the very characteristics of God's communicated Word. Ironically, modern Bible versions reinforce the very belief system their adherents hold: that only the general message and cardinal doctrines are preserved, not the actual words themselves. They believe all Bibles contain errors, and remarkably, the modern versions they use align perfectly with this low view of Scripture's preservation. For a comprehensive analysis of this pattern, see my free PDF '77 Changed Doctrines' at www.affectionsabove.com.

That's the key issue you're not grasping. But ultimately, people tend to see what they're already predisposed to believe."




,,,,

Oh the divinity of Christ is so important. It is so important that it took an emperor (Constantine) who was still a pagan and a huge payment to get the bishops at Nicaea to reverse at least two previous church councils to allow Christ to be divine, and even then, at a slightly later, better attended and more representative council, Nicaea was overruled and Christ was restored to humanity. But then dear Athanasius, who employed thugs to keep order in his diocese and bypassed proper church order to be ordained a bishop, proclaimed that no other church councils could overturn Nicaea as it had been called by the emperor and he had been recognized as "isopostolos" or "equal to the apostles", even though he had not been Christian at the time.

 

[GWH]

I forgot to respond to your question about my preferences. As for my preference, NIV tends to be my default when writing scholarly work, if I use another I specifically cite it as a different version, KJV when I just want a pleasant read, New Jerusalem can occasionally offer insights, but as my French is no longer that good, from lack of consistent use, I tend to avoid it as in English it is a translation from the French which was a direct translation from the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. If I am preaching, I will use whatever version the congregation uses, this morning it was the New English. And then there are often insightful translations in various commentaries.

Thanks for your answer, which is reassuring, because I also default to the 1984 NIV but appreciate the archaic wording of some KJV OT passages (such as the Christmas story in Luke 2 and some of the Psalms) and occasionally look at my other Bibles, including the 1976 TEV (which I liked enough that I tried to memorize swaths of it, but to no lasting avail) and my most recent acquisition, The ASB my daughter gave me for Christmas in 2010.

 

[GWH]

Oh the divinity of Christ is so important. It is so important that it took an emperor (Constantine) who was still a pagan and a huge payment to get the bishops at Nicaea to reverse at least two previous church councils to allow Christ to be divine, and even then, at a slightly later, better attended and more representative council, Nicaea was overruled and Christ was restored to humanity. But then dear Athanasius, who employed thugs to keep order in his diocese and bypassed proper church order to be ordained a bishop, proclaimed that no other church councils could overturn Nicaea as it had been called by the emperor and he had been recognized as "isopostolos" or "equal to the apostles", even though he had not been Christian at the time.

It is too bad those councils did not share my insight regarding the Triunity:

The OT Shema (Deut. 6:4) teaches that God is one, and the NT also affirms that there is one God (Eph. 4:6, 1Tim. 2:5). However, the NT teaches that God relates to believers in three ways or as three persons simultaneously: as the Father, as the Son and as the Holy Spirit (1 x 1 x 1=1).

The Father/Parenthood of God is indicated in Jesus’ model prayer (Matt. 6:9), throughout the Gospel of John (John 3:35, 5:17-18, etc.), and in the epistles of Paul (Rom. 4:11, 8:15, Phil. 2:11). God the Father and Christ’s Sonship are discussed in Hebrews 1:1-4. The Son of God also is mentioned by John (John 1:14, 3:16, etc.) and by Paul (Rom. 1:4, Gal. 2:20, 1Thes. 1:10). The Holy Spirit is mentioned in three successive chapters in John (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:13), frequently in the book of Acts (Acts 1:5, 2:4, 9:17, 13:2, 19:2), and in many of Paul’s letters (Rom. 8:4-26, 1Cor. 6:19, Eph. 4:30) as well as in some of the other epistles (2Pet. 1:21, Jude 20).

In order to understand the Trinity, it is helpful to discern which aspect or person of the triune God is the subject of various biblical statements. They may be distinguished by role: God the Father as creator or initiator (Gen. 1:1), God the Son as Messiah or mediator (1Tim. 2:5), and God the Spirit as indweller (Rom. 5:5). For example, 1 John 4:7 says love comes from (is initiated by) God (the Father), Galatians 5:22 says that love is a fruit of the (indwelling) Spirit, and Ephesians 3:18 speaks of the (mediating) love of Christ (Rom. 5:8, Eph. 2:18).

We can denote these distinctions per Scripture by the use of three prepositions: God the Father is over all creation (Eph. 4:6), God the Son is Immanuel or with humanity (Matt. 1:23), and the Holy Spirit is within all believers (Eph. 1:13). A single passage that comes closest to indicating this distinction is Eph. 3:14-19, in which Paul prays to the Father that through His Spirit of love Christ would dwell in believers’ hearts (also see 1Cor. 8:6). A single verse in which all three persons are mentioned and identified with grace, love and fellowship respectively is 2Cor. 13:14.

When the Bible uses masculine words for God, it should be understood that only God the Son is human and had a sexual orientation while on earth (Heb. 2:14-18). Gen 1:26-27 states that both male and female were created in God’s image, referring not to androgyny but to personality, and Jesus said (in Matt. 22:30 & 19:11-12) that there is no marriage and thus no need for sexuality in heaven.

Because creation also manifests God (Rom. 1:20, cf. John 1:1-3 & Psa. 33:6), in a sense God may be viewed as a “Quadity”. As Paul told the Athenians (Acts 17:28), “In Him we live and move and have our being.” God as Creation is throughout physical reality (called “panentheism”). However, since this mode of revelation is impersonal, it has rightly been de-emphasized by most Christian denominations lest it lead to pantheism.

Is this your concept also?

 

[studier]

Oh, you cite one of the more problematic passages, akin to Matthew 21:22. These references to prayer should be compared with those in Matt. 6:10 and 26:39&42, after which one is confronted with the choice of believing God will do our will or we should agree with God's will. I think the latter is obviously correct. However, I also think harmonization of GW is correct, so my immediate question is "How can both be true?" (both-and)

Do you agree with my thinking and want to answer first?

If I may join in with you two (cc: @Blue155 ) . I think the context of the church judiciary is very clear in Matt18 and the gathering of 2 or more should remain in context.

I was awaiting GWH's answer re: the one meaning to a passage before answering in many cases, yes, but if we get too stuck on this we're going to have problems. John for instance is well-known for saying things that can have more than a single meaning, while such multiple meanings of course all fit Scripturally. On another thread I've just been attempting to deal with an ambiguous phrase in Romans that more and more came to seem to be purposefully ambiguous so Paul could tighten it up in other sections of Romans and make it's understood that the breadth of meaning of the words involved is wide and should be considered as such so we don't get bogged-down in viewing them too simplistically.

Simply put, these are not simple writings we're dealing with and there are levels to understanding them. How long is it that men have been working in them?

 

[rewriter]

It is too bad those councils did not share my insight regarding the Triunity:

The OT Shema (Deut. 6:4) teaches that God is one, and the NT also affirms that there is one God (Eph. 4:6, 1Tim. 2:5). However, the NT teaches that God relates to believers in three ways or as three persons simultaneously: as the Father, as the Son and as the Holy Spirit (1 x 1 x 1=1).

The Father/Parenthood of God is indicated in Jesus’ model prayer (Matt. 6:9), throughout the Gospel of John (John 3:35, 5:17-18, etc.), and in the epistles of Paul (Rom. 4:11, 8:15, Phil. 2:11). God the Father and Christ’s Sonship are discussed in Hebrews 1:1-4. The Son of God also is mentioned by John (John 1:14, 3:16, etc.) and by Paul (Rom. 1:4, Gal. 2:20, 1Thes. 1:10). The Holy Spirit is mentioned in three successive chapters in John (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:13), frequently in the book of Acts (Acts 1:5, 2:4, 9:17, 13:2, 19:2), and in many of Paul’s letters (Rom. 8:4-26, 1Cor. 6:19, Eph. 4:30) as well as in some of the other epistles (2Pet. 1:21, Jude 20).

In order to understand the Trinity, it is helpful to discern which aspect or person of the triune God is the subject of various biblical statements. They may be distinguished by role: God the Father as creator or initiator (Gen. 1:1), God the Son as Messiah or mediator (1Tim. 2:5), and God the Spirit as indweller (Rom. 5:5). For example, 1 John 4:7 says love comes from (is initiated by) God (the Father), Galatians 5:22 says that love is a fruit of the (indwelling) Spirit, and Ephesians 3:18 speaks of the (mediating) love of Christ (Rom. 5:8, Eph. 2:18).

We can denote these distinctions per Scripture by the use of three prepositions: God the Father is over all creation (Eph. 4:6), God the Son is Immanuel or with humanity (Matt. 1:23), and the Holy Spirit is within all believers (Eph. 1:13). A single passage that comes closest to indicating this distinction is Eph. 3:14-19, in which Paul prays to the Father that through His Spirit of love Christ would dwell in believers’ hearts (also see 1Cor. 8:6). A single verse in which all three persons are mentioned and identified with grace, love and fellowship respectively is 2Cor. 13:14.

When the Bible uses masculine words for God, it should be understood that only God the Son is human and had a sexual orientation while on earth (Heb. 2:14-18). Gen 1:26-27 states that both male and female were created in God’s image, referring not to androgyny but to personality, and Jesus said (in Matt. 22:30 & 19:11-12) that there is no marriage and thus no need for sexuality in heaven.

Because creation also manifests God (Rom. 1:20, cf. John 1:1-3 & Psa. 33:6), in a sense God may be viewed as a “Quadity”. As Paul told the Athenians (Acts 17:28), “In Him we live and move and have our being.” God as Creation is throughout physical reality (called “panentheism”). However, since this mode of revelation is impersonal, it has rightly been de-emphasized by most Christian denominations lest it lead to pantheism.

Is this your concept also?

I firmly support the unity of God, while also recognizing that we humans tend to perceive God in multiple ways. Further, we, likely unconsciously, allow tradition to influence how we read some passages in scripture. Beyond that, I am over 15,500 words into expressing my understanding of God and an attendant new "proof" with quite a way to go. Part of the issue deals with Samuel, Moses and Elijah, all of whom can be seen as beneficiaries of apotheosis.

 

[GWH]

I firmly support the unity of God, while also recognizing that we humans tend to perceive God in multiple ways. Further, we, likely unconsciously, allow tradition to influence how we read some passages in scripture. Beyond that, I am over 15,500 words into expressing my understanding of God and an attendant new "proof" with quite a way to go. Part of the issue deals with Samuel, Moses and Elijah, all of whom can be seen as beneficiaries of apotheosis.

I would like to clarify what you said by asking whether you affirm the triunity of God and the Bible-based explanation that I shared.
If you disagree with part or all, please feel free to say so and why.

If you would like to share part of "beyond that" for discussion, please do that, especially if it is relevant for apologetics regarding atheists and heretics. TTYL

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Oh the divinity of Christ is so important. It is so important that it took an emperor (Constantine) who was still a pagan and a huge payment to get the bishops at Nicaea to reverse at least two previous church councils to allow Christ to be divine, and even then, at a slightly later, better attended and more representative council, Nicaea was overruled and Christ was restored to humanity. But then dear Athanasius, who employed thugs to keep order in his diocese and bypassed proper church order to be ordained a bishop, proclaimed that no other church councils could overturn Nicaea as it had been called by the emperor and he had been recognized as "isopostolos" or "equal to the apostles", even though he had not been Christian at the time.

The Megiddo Mosaic and Early Christian Witness Before Nicaea:

Claims that the divinity of Jesus Christ was created or imposed at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 cannot stand in light of the historical evidence that predates that council by decades, and in some cases centuries. Both archaeological evidence and early Christian writings demonstrate that Jesus was already confessed and worshiped as God long before any ecumenical council convened.

The Megiddo church mosaic, discovered in Israel in 2005, provides one of the clearest archaeological examples. The structure in which it was found is commonly dated to approximately AD 220–250, with many scholars favoring a date around AD 230. This places the mosaic nearly a century before Nicaea and well before Constantine exercised any influence over Christian doctrine. One of the Greek inscriptions reads plainly, Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, meaning, “To God, Jesus Christ.” The inscription appears in a worship context, associated with a table offered to Jesus Christ as God. This reflects established Christian devotion, not later theological development.

Alongside this archaeological witness stands the written testimony of early Christian authors, all of whom wrote before Nicaea. Ignatius of Antioch in the early second century repeatedly refers to Jesus Christ as God. Justin Martyr, writing in the mid second century, teaches Christ’s preexistence and divine nature. Irenaeus of Lyons in the late second century explicitly affirms Christ as both God and Son in opposition to Gnostic error. Tertullian, writing at the beginning of the third century, defends the deity of Christ using language that later councils would clarify but not invent.

What is significant is not merely that these witnesses exist, but that they are pre Nicene. They do not appeal to imperial authority, ecumenical councils, or later creeds. Their testimony reflects what Christians already believed, taught, and practiced within worshiping communities spread across the Roman world.


…

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Again, you have me convinced that the KJV is better than some MEBs in some cases, but not that it is perfect, so I will keep using my 1984 NIV, because its errors seem venial/didachaic/minor/not perverting the Gospel.

There is no verse where Jesus and his disciples talk about many topics that would have been helpful for heading off modern confusion, such as abortion, pacifism, how Genesis 1 jibes with physical science and why Joshua murdered babies.

Jesus did not say the Scriptures are filled with errors, but He and the NT writers did pick and choose their own Bible passages to show how the OT should be interpreted correctly in light of the revelation of Messiah and the Gospel. IOW, GW should not be identified with extant writings as though every word were dictated like the Ten Commandments, and OT truth should be amended to agree with the NT.

Regarding the Calvinists, do you distinguish between Reformed theology and the TULIP dogma? I agree and amen your saying the tulipists "just do not believe all the verses that are on free will when it comes to our making a choice towards God". This is what I am attempting to show on the Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture thread. If you have time to post something there, it would be appropriate and appreciated by me.

Go to www.kjvcompare.com using Google Chrome for the PC (or use Parallels for Mac using PC Chrome).

Select NIV and then look at all the changes and say to yourself if it is not corrupted.

Also, look at my PDF 77 changed doctrines at www.affectionsabove.com.

If you cannot see why the NiV is most corrupt and should not be trusted after looking at these two sources, I cannot help you and any further discussion on this matter will not help.


….

 

[GWH]

The Megiddo Mosaic and Early Christian Witness Before Nicaea:

Claims that the divinity of Jesus Christ was created or imposed at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 cannot stand in light of the historical evidence that predates that council by decades, and in some cases centuries. Both archaeological evidence and early Christian writings demonstrate that Jesus was already confessed and worshiped as God long before any ecumenical council convened.

The Megiddo church mosaic, discovered in Israel in 2005, provides one of the clearest archaeological examples. The structure in which it was found is commonly dated to approximately AD 220–250, with many scholars favoring a date around AD 230. This places the mosaic nearly a century before Nicaea and well before Constantine exercised any influence over Christian doctrine. One of the Greek inscriptions reads plainly, Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, meaning, “To God, Jesus Christ.” The inscription appears in a worship context, associated with a table offered to Jesus Christ as God. This reflects established Christian devotion, not later theological development.

Alongside this archaeological witness stands the written testimony of early Christian authors, all of whom wrote before Nicaea. Ignatius of Antioch in the early second century repeatedly refers to Jesus Christ as God. Justin Martyr, writing in the mid second century, teaches Christ’s preexistence and divine nature. Irenaeus of Lyons in the late second century explicitly affirms Christ as both God and Son in opposition to Gnostic error. Tertullian, writing at the beginning of the third century, defends the deity of Christ using language that later councils would clarify but not invent.

What is significant is not merely that these witnesses exist, but that they are pre Nicene. They do not appeal to imperial authority, ecumenical councils, or later creeds. Their testimony reflects what Christians already believed, taught, and practiced within worshiping communities spread across the Roman world.
…

Yes, the divinity of Jesus and triunity of God is taught in Scripture, and it is good when both early witnesses and councils and later believers and statements of faith agree with GW, which teaches that God is one and relates to believers in three ways or as three persons simultaneously: as the Father, as the Son and as the Holy Spirit.

The Father/Parenthood of God is indicated in Jesus’ model prayer (Matt. 6:9), throughout the Gospel of John (John 3:35, 5:17-18, etc.), and in the epistles of Paul (Rom. 4:11, 8:15, Phil. 2:11). God the Father and Christ’s Sonship are discussed in Hebrews 1:1-4. The Son of God also is mentioned by John (John 1:14, 3:16, etc.) and by Paul (Rom. 1:4, Gal. 2:20, 1Thes. 1:10). The Holy Spirit is mentioned in three successive chapters in John (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:13), frequently in the book of Acts (Acts 1:5, 2:4, 9:17, 13:2, 19:2), and in many of Paul’s letters (Rom. 8:4-26, 1Cor. 6:19, Eph. 4:30) as well as in some of the other epistles (2Pet. 1:21, Jude 20).

In order to understand the Trinity, it is helpful to discern which aspect or person of the triune God is the subject of various biblical statements. They may be distinguished by role: God the Father as creator or initiator (Gen. 1:1), God the Son as Messiah or mediator (1Tim. 2:5), and God the Spirit as indweller (Rom. 5:5). For example, 1 John 4:7 says love comes from (is initiated by) God (the Father), Galatians 5:22 says that love is a fruit of the (indwelling) Spirit, and Ephesians 3:18 speaks of the (mediating) love of Christ (Rom. 5:8, Eph. 2:18).

We can denote these distinctions per Scripture by the use of three prepositions: God the Father is over all creation (Eph. 4:6), God the Son is Immanuel or with humanity (Matt. 1:23), and the Holy Spirit is within all believers (Eph. 1:13). A single passage that comes closest to indicating this distinction is Eph. 3:14-19, in which Paul prays to the Father that through His Spirit of love Christ would dwell in believers’ hearts (also see 1Cor. 8:6). A single verse in which all three persons are mentioned and identified with grace, love and fellowship respectively is 2Cor. 13:14.

Do you agree with this?

 

[rewriter]

The Megiddo Mosaic and Early Christian Witness Before Nicaea:

Claims that the divinity of Jesus Christ was created or imposed at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 cannot stand in light of the historical evidence that predates that council by decades, and in some cases centuries. Both archaeological evidence and early Christian writings demonstrate that Jesus was already confessed and worshiped as God long before any ecumenical council convened.

The Megiddo church mosaic, discovered in Israel in 2005, provides one of the clearest archaeological examples. The structure in which it was found is commonly dated to approximately AD 220–250, with many scholars favoring a date around AD 230. This places the mosaic nearly a century before Nicaea and well before Constantine exercised any influence over Christian doctrine. One of the Greek inscriptions reads plainly, Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, meaning, “To God, Jesus Christ.” The inscription appears in a worship context, associated with a table offered to Jesus Christ as God. This reflects established Christian devotion, not later theological development.

Alongside this archaeological witness stands the written testimony of early Christian authors, all of whom wrote before Nicaea. Ignatius of Antioch in the early second century repeatedly refers to Jesus Christ as God. Justin Martyr, writing in the mid second century, teaches Christ’s preexistence and divine nature. Irenaeus of Lyons in the late second century explicitly affirms Christ as both God and Son in opposition to Gnostic error. Tertullian, writing at the beginning of the third century, defends the deity of Christ using language that later councils would clarify but not invent.

What is significant is not merely that these witnesses exist, but that they are pre Nicene. They do not appeal to imperial authority, ecumenical councils, or later creeds. Their testimony reflects what Christians already believed, taught, and practiced within worshiping communities spread across the Roman world.


…

The issue is not whether or not Jesus was recognized as divine, but at what point in time he was. Was it a case of apotheosis or preexistence. The Arian position was more widely accepted pre-Nicaea than is commonly recognized and does not rule out apotheosis.

 

[rewriter]

I would like to clarify what you said by asking whether you affirm the triunity of God and the Bible-based explanation that I shared.
If you disagree with part or all, please feel free to say so and why.

If you would like to share part of "beyond that" for discussion, please do that, especially if it is relevant for apologetics regarding atheists and heretics. TTYL

I agree with the early church, as indicated in the Didache, that the exact nature of the godhead is questionable. The Didache asserts three different views, that the only true member of the godhead was God the Father, that the true godhead was binary with God the Father and Jesus and that it was triune, God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I will not say that the triune god is wrong, but neither will I say that it is clearly presented.

As I noted elsewhere, the question of apotheosis enters in and complicates things. Both testaments suggest that apotheosis was recognized in Judaism. How does one address that issue without resorting to henotheism or denying scripture?

 

[Blue155]

If one takes a position on a passage that is different from mine, but their view is generally true because it is taught in other places in the scripture, or doesn’t go against the teachings of the Lord concerning the essentials (salvation, worship, the walk of the Christian, the nature of God, etc) I will not argue with them about it.

 

[GWH]

I agree with the early church, as indicated in the Didache, that the exact nature of the godhead is questionable. The Didache asserts three different views, that the only true member of the godhead was God the Father, that the true godhead was binary with God the Father and Jesus and that it was triune, God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I will not say that the triune god is wrong, but neither will I say that it is clearly presented.

As I noted elsewhere, the question of apotheosis enters in and complicates things. Both testaments suggest that apotheosis was recognized in Judaism. How does one address that issue without resorting to henotheism or denying scripture?

I understand that the Triunity was not clearly taught in the NT, which is why I asked whether you thought I used my editing gift well by sewing various verses together in the explanation I shared. You agree with the early church and a writing called the Didache, but do you agree that my explanation is about as correct as we can get per the NT?

Regarding your concern about apotheosis, please share the Scriptures you have in mind and explain your question.
Thanks.