The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity

[TomL]

Okay...I'm sorry I was unable to add any relevant information regarding this point.

TheLayman

No problem. No need for sorrow

Thank you for what you did post

 

[TomL]

Yes Theon= God and Theos = god when in the same paragraph. 2Cor 4:4 is proof of that.

Sorry Theos appears many times of Jehovah

Example

◄ 2 Corinthians 4:6 ►

Text Analysis Go to Parallel Greek Strong's Greek English Morphology 3754 [e] ὅτι hoti For [it is] Conj 3588 [e] ὁ ho - Art-NMS 2316 [e] Θεὸς Theos God, N-NMS 3588 [e] ὁ ho - Art-NMS 3004 [e] εἰπών eipōn having said, V-APA-NMS 1537 [e] Ἐκ Ek Out of Prep 4655 [e] σκότους skotous darkness N-GNS 5457 [e] φῶς phōs light N-NNS 2989 [e] λάμψει, lampsei shall shine,” V-FIA-3S 3739 [e] ὃς hos who RelPro-NMS 2989 [e] ἔλαμψεν elampsen shone V-AIA-3S 1722 [e] ἐν en in Prep 3588 [e] ταῖς tais the Art-DFP 2588 [e] καρδίαις kardiais hearts N-DFP 1473 [e] ἡμῶν hēmōn of us PPro-G1P 4314 [e] πρὸς pros for [the] Prep 5462 [e] φωτισμὸν phōtismon radiance N-AMS 3588 [e] τῆς tēs of the Art-GFS 1108 [e] γνώσεως gnōseōs knowledge N-GFS 3588 [e] τῆς tēs of the Art-GFS 1391 [e] δόξης doxēs glory N-GFS 3588 [e] τοῦ tou - Art-GMS 2316 [e] Θεοῦ Theou of God N-GMS 1722 [e] ἐν en in Prep 4383 [e] προσώπῳ prosōpō [the] face N-DNS 2424 [e] [Ἰησοῦ] Iēsou of Jesus N-GMS 5547 [e] Χριστοῦ. Christou Christ. N-GMS

 

[TomL]

Yes Theon= God and Theos = god when in the same paragraph. 2Cor 4:4 is proof of that.

Sorry that is not how it works

Theos is the nominative case - subject or object of the verb to be

Theon is the Accusative case - Direct Object Subject of Infinitive


Edward W. Goodrick, Do It Yourself Hebrew and Greek: A Guide to Biblical Language Tools (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980), x.

 

[TomL]

You said Theos = God, but fact is not in all cases , like at 2 Cor 4:4 as i showed satan is called Theos=god when in the same paragraph with Theon. The same translating goes for John 1:1 as well.

Afraid not

AFV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(AKJV-R) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(ABU_NT) IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(ARV 2005) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(ASV-2014) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Anderson) IN the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD. was with God, and the WORD was God.
(ANT) in beginning was The Word and The Word was to the god and God was The Word
(ASV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(BBE) From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.
(VW) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Bishops) In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God.
(CEV) In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.
(CENT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(cjb) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Complete Apostles' Bible) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(CTBible) In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(Mace) In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
(Darby) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Douay-Rheims) D:ModulesIn the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
(DRB) In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
(EMTV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(JB2000) ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.
(ERV) Before the world began, the Word was there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(ESV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(FAA) In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.
(FBV) In the beginning the Word already was281. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Geneva) In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.
(Noyes NT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(GNB) In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(GDBY_NT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(GW) In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(csb) In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(HNC-NT) The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word is the essence of God.
(ISV) In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(LITV-TSP) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WORNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(JUB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.
(KJ2000) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(KJVCNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(KJ3) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
ETC

 

[Keiw1]

Sorry Theos appears many times of Jehovah

Example

​

◄ 2 Corinthians 4:6 ►

​

Text Analysis Go to Parallel Greek Strong's Greek English Morphology 3754 [e] ὅτι hoti For [it is] Conj 3588 [e] ὁ ho - Art-NMS 2316 [e] Θεὸς Theos God, N-NMS 3588 [e] ὁ ho - Art-NMS 3004 [e] εἰπών eipōn having said, V-APA-NMS 1537 [e] Ἐκ Ek Out of Prep 4655 [e] σκότους skotous darkness N-GNS 5457 [e] φῶς phōs light N-NNS 2989 [e] λάμψει, lampsei shall shine,” V-FIA-3S 3739 [e] ὃς hos who RelPro-NMS 2989 [e] ἔλαμψεν elampsen shone V-AIA-3S 1722 [e] ἐν en in Prep 3588 [e] ταῖς tais the Art-DFP 2588 [e] καρδίαις kardiais hearts N-DFP 1473 [e] ἡμῶν hēmōn of us PPro-G1P 4314 [e] πρὸς pros for [the] Prep 5462 [e] φωτισμὸν phōtismon radiance N-AMS 3588 [e] τῆς tēs of the Art-GFS 1108 [e] γνώσεως gnōseōs knowledge N-GFS 3588 [e] τῆς tēs of the Art-GFS 1391 [e] δόξης doxēs glory N-GFS 3588 [e] τοῦ tou - Art-GMS 2316 [e] Θεοῦ Theou of God N-GMS 1722 [e] ἐν en in Prep 4383 [e] προσώπῳ prosōpō [the] face N-DNS 2424 [e] [Ἰησοῦ] Iēsou of Jesus N-GMS 5547 [e] Χριστοῦ. Christou Christ. N-GMS

I never met anyone as thick as you. I explained it--when the true God is spoken of alone in a paragraph Theos was used=God, but when 2 are being called God- god, the true God is called Theon--John 1:1 and 2 Cor 4:4 is proof. If the word were being called the true God he would have been called Theon. You just fight against reality out of FEAR of being wrong.--You are WRONG.

 

[Keiw1]

Sorry that is not how it works

Theos is the nominative case - subject or object of the verb to be

Theon is the Accusative case - Direct Object Subject of Infinitive


Edward W. Goodrick, Do It Yourself Hebrew and Greek: A Guide to Biblical Language Tools (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980), x.

You listen to those in darkness-you will lose.

 

[Keiw1]

Afraid not

AFV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(AKJV-R) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(ABU_NT) IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(ARV 2005) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(ASV-2014) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Anderson) IN the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD. was with God, and the WORD was God.
(ANT) in beginning was The Word and The Word was to the god and God was The Word
(ASV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(BBE) From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.
(VW) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Bishops) In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God.
(CEV) In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.
(CENT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(cjb) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Complete Apostles' Bible) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(CTBible) In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(Mace) In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
(Darby) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Douay-Rheims) D:ModulesIn the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
(DRB) In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
(EMTV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(JB2000) ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.
(ERV) Before the world began, the Word was there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(ESV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(FAA) In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.
(FBV) In the beginning the Word already was281. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Geneva) In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.
(Noyes NT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(GNB) In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(GDBY_NT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(GW) In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(csb) In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(HNC-NT) The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word is the essence of God.
(ISV) In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(LITV-TSP) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WORNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(JUB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.
(KJ2000) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(KJVCNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(KJ3) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
ETC

Yes, translations used by--A house divided( hundreds of trinity religions) they will not stand.--they are a mass of confusion leading all in darkness.

 

[TomL]

Yes, translations used by--A house divided( hundreds of trinity religions) they will not stand.--they are a mass of confusion leading all in darkness.

LOL

So much for your claim the lexicons (really translation as you do not know the difference) support your little g doctrine

 

[Keiw1]

LOL

So much for your claim the lexicons (really translation as you do not know the difference) support your little g doctrine

20 other translations minimum in history has a god. All done by Greek scholars.

 

[TomL]

You listen to those in darkness-you will lose.

You are speaking out of ignorance

Sorry that is not how it works

Theos is the nominative case - subject or object of the verb to be

Theon is the Accusative case - Direct Object Subject of Infinitive


Edward W. Goodrick, Do It Yourself Hebrew and Greek: A Guide to Biblical Language Tools (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980), x.

and ignoring Greek scholarship

 

[TomL]

20 other translations minimum in history has a god. All done by Greek scholars.

No they do not

You have not been able to produce them

 

[Keiw1]

You are speaking out of ignorance

Sorry that is not how it works

Theos is the nominative case - subject or object of the verb to be

Theon is the Accusative case - Direct Object Subject of Infinitive


Edward W. Goodrick, Do It Yourself Hebrew and Greek: A Guide to Biblical Language Tools (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980), x.

and ignoring Greek scholarship

You will find out--Jesus has a God just like us. God does not have a God. It takes believing Jesus, no trinitarian on earth will.

 

[Keiw1]

No they do not

You have not been able to produce them

You Tom L. need to make sure of all things-1Thess 5:21--be wise Tom L.

 

[TomL]

You Tom L. need to make sure of all things-1Thess 5:21--be wise Tom L.

I am sure as I have over 100 translations and only 2-3 have a god and one is the NWT

You are not able to back your claim up with proof.

 

[TomL]

You will find out--Jesus has a God just like us. God does not have a God. It takes believing Jesus, no trinitarian on earth will.

You ignore the evidence


Theos is the nominative case - subject or object of the verb to be

Theon is the Accusative case - Direct Object Subject of Infinitive


Edward W. Goodrick, Do It Yourself Hebrew and Greek: A Guide to Biblical Language Tools (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980), x.

ignoring Greek scholarship and have given your mind over to a society that claimed Jesus invisibly come back in 1914 and was hold up in a watchtower building

 

[Keiw1]

I am sure as I have over 100 translations and only 2-3 have a god and one is the NWT

You are not able to back your claim up with proof.

God will.

 

[Keiw1]

You ignore the evidence


Theos is the nominative case - subject or object of the verb to be

Theon is the Accusative case - Direct Object Subject of Infinitive


Edward W. Goodrick, Do It Yourself Hebrew and Greek: A Guide to Biblical Language Tools (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980), x.

ignoring Greek scholarship and have given your mind over to a society that claimed Jesus invisibly come back in 1914 and was hold up in a watchtower building

I ignore ignorant Greek Scholars. 20 translations had a god by Greek scholars, how do you explain that? One side of them is ignorant.

 

[TomL]

I ignore ignorant Greek Scholars. 20 translations had a god by Greek scholars, how do you explain that? One side of them is ignorant.

Sorry you were never able to produce 20 scholars who translate a god

You have the NWT the Jehovah's witness translation, Benjamin Wilson, Johannes Greber A spiritist the Watchtower renounced

 

[TomL]

God will.

In other words you cannot produce 20 translations which read a god, and you know it but claimed it anyway.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Back to the topic of Divine Simplicity. A couple of comments on what DR., WLC said here...I actually meant to put these comments in my previous response on this topic. Dr. Craig will often start with these subtle misrepresentations of the Historic Faith. God is not "a person," God is "one being" and "three persons."

Three persons and simplicity, how does that work? Obviously people write books on this stuff and philosophy geeks love it...me, not so much. Anyway, to take this back to simpler times, simplicity deals with the substance/essence/nature of God (those things are three sides of the same triangle). So when you are dealing with the substance/essence/nature of God, the "being" if you will, are there parts? No. Why? Well, the simple answer is there is a distinction in what subsistence/hypostasis/person and substance/essence/nature mean.

So, when speaking of the substance/essence/nature of God it has no parts, nor is it divided among three persons, each person possesses the substance/essence/nature entirely (and if they didn't they would be separate beings). And they do not possess it separately. But first, let me point out that in this teaching one can see that:

1. There are no parts to the substance/essence/nature
2. There is no difference in the substance/essence/nature that each person possesses (a person is the possessor of his nature, not the other way around)
3. The persons do not possess the substance/essence/nature separately (as do humans, angels, and created things).

So, what happens is problems arise between the Geeks "philosophical models" of how this can be. The problem is not with the doctrine which has always taught that God is indeed 3 but in a different way than God is 1. The doctrine is very clear that there are not three Gods. And the doctrine has also been very clear that God literally transcends this universe and all we know and understand, so we cannot conceive of this God with our minds. But let me give you a crude idea of what is being said. I'm pretty sure everyone has seen a plasma ball before but if not, here is a picture (I hope):

View attachment 872

So, you see two things (well actually three). You see a sphere, you see the plasma, and you see the plasma contained within the sphere. So, in the abstract we will call the sphere a "person/subsistence/hypostasis" and the plasma and everything contained within "substance/essence/nature." Remember, that is in the abstract for a person/subsistence/hypostasis does not exist without a substance/essence/nature and vice-versa. We we talk about them in the abstract we are just talking about classes of things, a species if you will. So we talk about specific men that exist, like Pancho and TheLayman, we will be talking about real, actual, *concrete *(I don't want to confuse anyone with this word since we will be talking about immaterial, metaphysical existences as actualities) an actual existing sphere of plasma as you see above. As humans, Pancho and I will be separate spheres and contained within is human substance/essence/nature. Same with angels, they would be separate spheres with angel substance/essence/nature.

Now with the Trinity, imagine if you will three identical spheres in the same space and within these spheres is the one Supreme Divine Substance/Essence/Nature. Each sphere exists because it possesses the Supreme Divine Substance/Essence/Nature...unlike created creatures there are not separate spheres with separate substance/essence/nature. And if you can, imagine the sphere existing and being immaterial (spirit). With the Trinity and the Persons...if you have one you have the sum, without one you would have none.

The thing I hate about any analogy is it is based on our understanding of a created 3 dimensional universe and so one can only hope to illustrate some concepts, and crudely at that (this is in the book I've been working on forever...well, almost that long). I cannot show someone the Trinity with an illustration, I cannot even illustrate all the concepts very well with a single illustration. But with this one you can get an idea of one being/three persons. You can get an idea of perichoresis, the mutual indwelling of the persons. But people write libraries on the few things I just tried to illustrate so I'm not trying to "prove" something, just to help "explain" it.

TheLayman

I appreciate your post very much. All attempts to grasp so high and sacred concepts to bring them closer to human mind should be welcomed, as long as they are presented with humility, as you do.

I personally do not pray, love or render my life to a Supreme Divine Substance/Essence/Nature. I am not saying that your model is wrong, my brother, and that I understand God better. Not at all. I admit that treating God as a Person is an adaptation of an unfathomable reality to my human, limited reality.
What I mean is that from my human condition, I can only love and obey a person, not an abstract concept.

I could even translate that into my relationship with animals.
I don't love a "canine essence", present in all dogs: I love my dog as an individual. His name is "Quique" (pronounced "keekay").
I don't say I cannot imagine the abstraction of a "canine essence", talk about it, and accept its existence. In fact I do. I just say I cannot love a canine essence, but my particular dog.

The Tanakh, the New Testament and the Quran present God as if He were a Person.