Unitarians: Who is your Saviour?

[Jezz]

It seems to me that unitarians spend all their time attacking the Trinity proof texts of John 1:1 and John 8:58. They seem oblivious to the fact that these are only a couple of the many, many pieces of evidence for the divinity of Christ throughout the Bible. This is evidenced by the fact that there is much unitarian discussion going on at the moment in a couple of threads about the aforementioned verses, however the new Son of Man thread that I started as further evidence of the divinity of Christ (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=6324) has attracted an underwhelming response.

Oh well, perhaps I'll try another piece of evidence, and see if I can get a better response from the unitarians this time. :smile:

Who is our Saviour? Well, according to many places in the OT, it is YHWH our God who is our Rock, our Fortress, and our Saviour. Some examples (there are many more instances):

"The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior! (2 Samuel 22:47)

Cry out, "Save us, O God our Savior; gather us and deliver us from the nations, that we may give thanks to your holy name, that we may glory in your praise." (1 Chronicles 16:35)

The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Savior! (Psalm 18:46)

He will call out to me, 'You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.' (Psalm 89:26)

You will drink the milk of nations and be nursed at royal breasts. Then you will know that I, the LORD , am your Savior, your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob. (Isaiah 60:16)

As far as I can tell, the word "Saviour" is never applied to anyone in the Old Testament other than God. It seems that only God was considered the Saviour. In fact, there are verses in the OT that explicitly state that only God is the Saviour:

I, even I, am the LORD , and apart from me there is no savior. (Isaiah 43:11)

"But I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me. (Hosea 13:4)

Thus the OT is very clear - God and only God is the Saviour. We are to acknowledge no Saviour apart from Him.

The NT continues consistently with the theme that God is the Saviour:

and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, (Luke 1:47)

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, (1 Timothy 1:1)

(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:10)

and at his appointed season he brought his word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior, (Titus 1:3)

and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. (Titus 2:10)

So the NT also says that God alone is the Saviour of all mankind. Thus it is consistent with the OT. Or is it?

What about these passages:

Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. (Luke 2:11)

They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world." (John 4:42)

God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. (Acts 5:31)

"From this man's descendants God has brought to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised. (Acts 13:23)


Suddenly, it seems that Christ is the Saviour! While the OT only ever refers to God as the Saviour (and explicitly states that we are to acknowledge no other Saviour), the NT refers to both Jesus and God as the Saviour (but noone else).

It seems to me that this puts unitarians into a bit of a pickle. If you are a unitarian, who is your Saviour? Is God your Saviour, or is Jesus your Saviour? If you choose Jesus as your Saviour, and you don't believe then you are violating the Bible's command that we are to acknowledge no Saviour other than God Himself. But if Jesus is not your Saviour, then what was the point of Him dying on the cross?

There is, of course, a third possibility - Jesus is God. In that case, there is no contradiction if you call both Jesus and God your saviour, because both are God. And if Jesus is God, this also means that the NT only ever calls God the Savioiur - just as the OT requires. Thus we have perfect consistency. This is, in fact, what the Bible teaches:

while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, (Titus 2:13)

Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: (2 Peter 1:1)

So unitarians, it's crunch time. Who is your Saviour?

[Tsmith]

Today @ 03:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133690#post133690)
Jezz:

It seems to me that unitarians spend all their time attacking the Trinity proof texts of John 1:1 and John 8:58. They seem oblivious to the fact that these are only a couple of the many, many pieces of evidence for the divinity of Christ throughout the Bible. This is evidenced by the fact that there is much unitarian discussion going on at the moment in a couple of threads about the aforementioned verses, however the new Son of Man thread that I started as further evidence of the divinity of Christ (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=6324) has attracted an underwhelming response.

Oh well, perhaps I'll try another piece of evidence, and see if I can get a better response from the unitarians this time. :smile:

Who is our Saviour? Well, according to many places in the OT, it is YHWH our God who is our Rock, our Fortress, and our Saviour. Some examples (there are many more instances):


As far as I can tell, the word "Saviour" is never applied to anyone in the Old Testament other than God. It seems that only God was considered the Saviour. In fact, there are verses in the OT that explicitly state that only God is the Saviour:


Thus the OT is very clear - God and only God is the Saviour. We are to acknowledge no Saviour apart from Him.

The NT continues consistently with the theme that God is the Saviour:


So the NT also says that God alone is the Saviour of all mankind. Thus it is consistent with the OT. Or is it?

What about these passages:



Suddenly, it seems that Christ is the Saviour! While the OT only ever refers to God as the Saviour (and explicitly states that we are to acknowledge no other Saviour), the NT refers to both Jesus and God as the Saviour (but noone else).

It seems to me that this puts unitarians into a bit of a pickle. If you are a unitarian, who is your Saviour? Is God your Saviour, or is Jesus your Saviour? If you choose Jesus as your Saviour, and you don't believe then you are violating the Bible's command that we are to acknowledge no Saviour other than God Himself. But if Jesus is not your Saviour, then what was the point of Him dying on the cross?

There is, of course, a third possibility - Jesus is God. In that case, there is no contradiction if you call both Jesus and God your saviour, because both are God. And if Jesus is God, this also means that the NT only ever calls God the Savioiur - just as the OT requires. Thus we have perfect consistency. This is, in fact, what the Bible teaches:


So unitarians, it's crunch time. Who is your Saviour?

Please read Judges 3:15 and then compare it with the grammar found around the passive verb in John 3:17 and you'll get your answer plain as day.

[Jezz]

Tsmith:
Please read Judges 3:15 and then compare it with the grammar found around the passive verb in John 3:17 and you'll get your answer plain as day.
You have in fact proven that "yasha'" (saviour) is used for people other than God in the OT. Well done.

But your explanation falls short. You haven't explained how this harmonises with the command not to acknowledge anyone other than God as our Saviour.

The answer is obvious: Ehud (in Judges 3:15) was not a spiritual Saviour through whom eternal life was given. Ehud was a saviour who delivered Israel from the (very earthly) oppression of the Moabites. He did not save anyone from eternal death. It is only Jesus/God that saves us from eternal death.

The verse prior to John 3:17 (the famous John 3:16) makes it obvious that the saving being done in that context was to save mankind from eternal death.

So let me ask the question again (clarified slightly): who are you relying on to save you from eternal death? (I'm guessing that it's not Ehud?)

[Tsmith]

Today @ 07:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133797#post133797)
Jezz:


You have in fact proven that "yasha'" (saviour) is used for people other than God in the OT. Well done.

But your explanation falls short. You haven't explained how this harmonises with the command not to acknowledge anyone other than God as our Saviour.

The answer is obvious: Ehud (in Judges 3:15) was not a spiritual Saviour through whom eternal life was given. Ehud was a saviour who delivered Israel from the (very earthly) oppression of the Moabites. He did not save anyone from eternal death. It is only Jesus/God that saves us from eternal death.

The verse prior to John 3:17 (the famous John 3:16) makes it obvious that the saving being done in that context was to save mankind from eternal death.

So let me ask the question again (clarified slightly): who are you relying on to save you from eternal death? (I'm guessing that it's not Ehud?)


The obvious context is dealing with the source of salvation as Jehovah himself calls these ones saviors himself. It does say that Jehovah is our only savior, but the fact that he brings many people forth as savior shows that it is him being the source while using other people as his agents. See, the point of John 3:17 is that Jesus' saving ability comes from God, just as it did with Ehud.

-Tony

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Hi Tony

Please can you explain John 5:26 for me, Jesus says he has "life in himself" - the same phrase is used of God here also. Yes, it is given. But, if Jesus has the same "life in himself" that God does, how is that "the same as with Ehud"?

Thanks, Guy

[Tsmith]

06-27-2003 @ 01:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133955#post133955)
ghbearman:

Hi Tony

Please can you explain John 5:26 for me, Jesus says he has "life in himself" - the same phrase is used of God here also. Yes, it is given. But, if Jesus has the same "life in himself" that God does, how is that "the same as with Ehud"?

Thanks, Guy

I believe the key word there is "gave."

-Tony

[AVmetro]

"gave"

"...because He is the Son of Man.

That aside, I think TS is placing too much faith in the passive verb while ignoring the fact that Christ laid down His life "..of {my} own accord.." The grace of God is said to be the grace of Christ etc.

The pertinent point being that Christ is referred to as our "ONLY Savior".

Why?

The answer is found in the fact that the Father is also referred to as "our only savior". If temporal saviors do not exclude the Father from being the ONLY Savior "..to the ends of the earth.." then it is important to note that Christ, too, is excluded from this group of temporal saviors on account of the "ONLY" clause. This is highly significant as it places Him within the divine identity. The question for TS is; What, precisely, does "only" entail?

God bless

[Tsmith]

Today @ 07:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135744#post135744)
IronMetro:



"...because He is the Son of Man.

That aside, I think TS is placing too much faith in the passive verb while ignoring the fact that Christ laid down His life "..of {my} own accord.." The grace of God is said to be the grace of Christ etc.

The pertinent point being that Christ is referred to as our "ONLY Savior".

Why?

The answer is found in the fact that the Father is also referred to as "our only savior". If temporal saviors do not exclude the Father from being the ONLY Savior "..to the ends of the earth.." then it is important to note that Christ, too, is excluded from this group of temporal saviors on account of the "ONLY" clause. This is highly significant as it places Him within the divine identity. The question for TS is; What, precisely, does "only" entail?

God bless

Only in what sense.

Joh 8:41 You do the works of your father. They said to Him, We were not born of fornication; we have one father, God.

Joh 8:53 Are You greater than our father Abraham who died? And the prophets died! Whom do You make Yourself?

Just because somebody is refered to as the one or only something does not exclude another from being that same type of thing in a different sense.

-Tony

[Jezz]

Tsmith:
Just because somebody is refered to as the one or only something does not exclude another from being that same type of thing in a different sense.
Like, for example, just because the Father is the only God, that does not exclude the Son from also being the only God but in a different sense? :smile:

[AVmetro]

Just because somebody is refered to as the one or only something does not exclude another from being that same type of thing in a different sense.

Now there's a patent example of a false dichotomy. Are you asserting that Christ is our 'only savior' in regards to something else entirely?

In an example of exclusive divine identity, YHWH declares:

Isa 45:21-23 - Declare and bring near; yea, let them consult together. Who has revealed this of old; who has told it from then? Is it not I, Jehovah? And there is no God other than Me; a just God and a Savior; there is none except Me.
Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, the Word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

The ultimate in salvation was wrought in Christ i.e. the reconciliation of mankind to its creator. It is in this sense that Christ is our "only Savior". It is also in this sense that the Father is our 'only Savior'. Note the above. 'Savior' is modified by "all the ends of the earth." In what context does the NT place this? See Rom14:11; Phil2:8,10-11.

One of the key differences between Christ as our 'Only Savior' and the lesser "temporal saviors" of the OT is that Christ is accredited for our salvation and is exhalted for such and as such.

God bless

[Tsmith]

Today @ 04:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136416#post136416)
IronMetro:



Now there's a patent example of a false dichotomy. Are you asserting that Christ is our 'only savior' in regards to something else entirely?

In an example of exclusive divine identity, YHWH declares:

Isa 45:21-23 - Declare and bring near; yea, let them consult together. Who has revealed this of old; who has told it from then? Is it not I, Jehovah? And there is no God other than Me; a just God and a Savior; there is none except Me.
Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, the Word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

The ultimate in salvation was wrought in Christ i.e. the reconciliation of mankind to its creator. It is in this sense that Christ is our "only Savior". It is also in this sense that the Father is our 'only Savior'. Note the above. 'Savior' is modified by "all the ends of the earth." In what context does the NT place this? See Rom14:11; Phil2:8,10-11.

One of the key differences between Christ as our 'Only Savior' and the lesser "temporal saviors" of the OT is that Christ is accredited for our salvation and is exhalted for such and as such.

God bless

Not in regards to something else, but in a different sense. See, with salvation, John 3:17 clearly shows us that God is the source of the salvation that is being brought to the world and it is being done by means of Jesus. But have an act in saving, but Jehovah is the original source of it. He sent his Son. If that act had not been done, there would be no saving. Jesus gave up his life. If that act had not be done, there would be no saving. Both saved us in a different sense, but with God being the initial source of it.

Another way to look at it is this. Jesus said that only God is our Father, yet we know from Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is called Everlasting Father. Is Jesus God the Father? No he is not. But, he is now called our Everlasting Father, because of his ransom.

[Jezz]

Tsmith:
Not in regards to something else, but in a different sense. See, with salvation, John 3:17 clearly shows us that God is the source of the salvation that is being brought to the world and it is being done by means of Jesus. But have an act in saving, but Jehovah is the original source of it. He sent his Son. If that act had not been done, there would be no saving. Jesus gave up his life. If that act had not be done, there would be no saving. Both saved us in a different sense, but with God being the initial source of it.
It seems to me that what you are saying is that God is the saviour of the world, and that he saved us using Jesus. Jesus did not save us by his own power.

Wouldn't it then be somewhat misleading to call Jesus the Saviour at all? I mean, wouldn't it be much more accurate to say "Jesus, through whom God saves"? If your position was correct, I would only ever expect to see sentences of the second type. How do you explain the presence of sentences of the second type?

Consider this example: If Jesus is merely God's representative (as you claim), and not God Himself, then it would be very confusing if the Bible thereby claimed that Jesus was God, wouldn't it?

Compare this with the Saviour statements: If Jesus is merely the vessel through which God works his saving grace, and the saving grace does not originate with Jesus himself, then it would be very misleading if the Bible claimed that Jesus was Saviour, wouldn't it?

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 11:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138228#post138228)
Jezz:

It seems to me that what you are saying is that God is the saviour of the world, and that he saved us using Jesus. Jesus did not save us by his own power.

Wouldn't it then be somewhat misleading to call Jesus the Saviour at all? I mean, wouldn't it be much more accurate to say "Jesus, through whom God saves"? If your position was correct, I would only ever expect to see sentences of the second type. How do you explain the presence of sentences of the second type?

Consider this example: If Jesus is merely God's representative (as you claim), and not God Himself, then it would be very confusing if the Bible thereby claimed that Jesus was God, wouldn't it?

Compare this with the Saviour statements: If Jesus is merely the vessel through which God works his saving grace, and the saving grace does not originate with Jesus himself, then it would be very misleading if the Bible claimed that Jesus was Saviour, wouldn't it?

Having studied the Bible languages, Hebrew and Greek, I noticed something very interesting about the word "Salvation" in the HOT. Every time you see the word "salvation" with a pronoun, e.g. his, our, your, etc., it is the Hebrew ישועה The Savior's name in Aramaic is ישוע, which is also the diminuative of Jehoshua or Joshua, in Hebrew. The spelling differs only by the addition of the letter "heh", in salvation, but they are pronounced exactly the same.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 02:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138228#post138228)
Jezz:


It seems to me that what you are saying is that God is the saviour of the world, and that he saved us using Jesus. Jesus did not save us by his own power.

Wouldn't it then be somewhat misleading to call Jesus the Saviour at all? I mean, wouldn't it be much more accurate to say "Jesus, through whom God saves"? If your position was correct, I would only ever expect to see sentences of the second type. How do you explain the presence of sentences of the second type?

Consider this example: If Jesus is merely God's representative (as you claim), and not God Himself, then it would be very confusing if the Bible thereby claimed that Jesus was God, wouldn't it?

Compare this with the Saviour statements: If Jesus is merely the vessel through which God works his saving grace, and the saving grace does not originate with Jesus himself, then it would be very misleading if the Bible claimed that Jesus was Saviour, wouldn't it?

Actually, no. Again, we go back to the example of Ehud being called savior.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 01:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138256#post138256)
OldShepherd:

Having studied the Bible languages, Hebrew and Greek, I noticed something very interesting about the word "Salvation" in the HOT. Every time you see the word "salvation" with a pronoun, e.g. his, our, your, etc., it is the Hebrew ישועה The Savior's name in Aramaic is ישוע, which is also the diminuative of Jehoshua or Joshua, in Hebrew. The spelling differs only by the addition of the letter "heh", in salvation, but they are pronounced exactly the same.

For example,
ישועה/Yeshuah = Salvation.

ישוע/Yeshua = Jesus’ name in Aramaic and Hebrew.

Exd 15:2 The LORD [is] my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: [ישועה/Yeshuah] he [is] my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I will exalt him.

Psa 22:1 [[To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David.]] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me [ישועה/Yeshuah], [and from] the words of my roaring?

Psa 20:5 We will rejoice in thy salvation [ישועה/Yeshuah], and in the name of our God we will set up [our] banners: the LORD fulfil all thy petitions

Psa 62:2 He only [is] my rock and my salvation [ישועה/Yeshuah]; [he is] my defence; I shall not be greatly moved.

Isa 12:2 Behold, God [is] my salvation[ישועה/Yeshuah]; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH [is] my strength and [my] song; he also is become my salvation [ישועה /Yeshuah”].

Isa 12:3 Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation [ישועה/Yeshuah].

Jhn 4:10 Jesus [ישוע/Yeshua] answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Isa 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation [ישועה/Yeshuah] unto the end of the earth.

Act 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, [saying], I have set thee [ישוע/Yeshua] to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

[Uriah-]

This is too simple, go read Obadiah 1:21 and Nehemiah 9:27, guess what Hebrew word is used there for "saviors"? Same one as in Isaiah 43:11 only in plural since it is "saviors."

I can call a lifeguard my "savior" if I would be drowning and he saves me. But I know in reality that YHVH is the real Savior since without YHVH allowing the lifeguard to save me, it wouldn't happen. YHVH does his saving through many servants, and thus they have the right to be titled as "saviors."

Is being called "savior" prove you are the true God? No.

Should I be surprised that Trinitarians don't know this fact? No.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 11:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139098#post139098)
Uriah-:

This is too simple, go read Obadiah 1:21 and Nehemiah 9:27, guess what Hebrew word is used there for "saviors"? Same one as in Isaiah 43:11 only in plural since it is "saviors."

I can call a lifeguard my "savior" if I would be drowning and he saves me. But I know in reality that YHVH is the real Savior since without YHVH allowing the lifeguard to save me, it wouldn't happen. YHVH does his saving through many servants, and thus they have the right to be titled as "saviors."

Is being called "savior" prove you are the true God? No.

Should I be surprised that Trinitarians don't know this fact? No.

This is too simple. The word translated "savior" in Ob 1:21 and Neh 9:27, is NOT "Yeshuah" but "Yasha" And neither of these verse sare cited in the NT as the verses I listed.

Am I surprised that someone pretending to be Jewish, who doesn't even read or write Hebrew doesn't know this? No.

[Jezz]

Jezz:
Compare this with the Saviour statements: If Jesus is merely the vessel through which God works his saving grace, and the saving grace does not originate with Jesus himself, then it would be very misleading if the Bible claimed that Jesus was Saviour, wouldn't it?

TSmith:
Actually, no. Again, we go back to the example of Ehud being called savior.
Again, you missed the point that Ehud is not being credited with achieving saving grace - a very eternal, divine achievement, and one that throughout the OT is only ever associated with God and not any representative. Ehud was credited with a very earthly saving of Israel from very earthly enemies.

[Uriah-]

This is too simple. The word translated "savior" in Ob 1:21 and Neh 9:27, is NOT "Yeshuah" but "Yasha" And neither of these verse sare cited in the NT as the verses I listed.

Am I surprised that someone pretending to be Jewish, who doesn't even read or write Hebrew doesn't know this? No.

You talk about yourself in these words. If you would have actually read the Hebrew it is neither "Yasha" nor "Yeshuah" but instead it is "Moshi'im" and the singular for that is "moshi'a" which is in Isaiah 43:11. Next time actually read the Hebrew instead of your lexicon so you won't make a fool out of yourself like you just did.

[Jezz]

OldShepherd:

If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that orally, there is no difference between that variant of "salvation" and "Jesus", as pronounced in the original Hebrew?

Assuming I've understood that much correctly, I find your observation fascinating, and it is one that I was not aware of. In light of my understanding, I would like to make a couple of further observations. Please let me know if I am jumping to unfounded conclusions, or if I have misunderstood you.

Exd 15:2 The LORD my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: [ישועה/[I]Yeshuah] he my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I will exalt him.
This would sound the same, in Hebrew, as:

The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become Jesus: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation, my father's God, and I will exalt him.

I find it very interesting that it says "...he [the LORD] is become Jesus...". What could be plainer than that?

I also find this to be a fascinating passage, given the next part: "he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation". If we permit my reading, then this clause could equally apply to Jesus. Thus we would have Moses calling Jesus his God, and preparing a habitation for him. What was Moses doing at the time? He was preparing the Israelites to return to Israel - the nation that would form the habitation of Jesus on earth generations later.

Psa 22:1 [[To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David.]] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me [ישוע&#/[I]Yeshuah], [and from] the words of my roaring?
This would sound the same in Hebrew as:

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from Jesus and from the words of my roaring?

Of course, this is the Psalm quoted by Jesus on the cross, and it also goes on to give a description of a crucifixion. The fact that "Jesus" appears at the start of this Psalm strengthens this Psalm as evidence for a predictive prophecy greatly.

Psa 62:2 He only my rock and my salvation [ישועה/[I]Yeshuah]; [he is] my defence; I shall not be greatly moved.
He only is my rock and Jesus;...

Of course, the "He" in this Psalm is God.

Verse 6 is almost identical to v2, except it omits "greatly".

Also, the start of verse 7:
In God my salvation... - compare to "In God is Jesus...". (Although, a slightly different form of the world for "salvation" is used here (yesha' instead of yeshu'ah)).

Isa 12:2 Behold, God [is] my salvation[ישועה/[I]Yeshuah]; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH my strength and [my] song; he also is become my salvation [ישועה /[I]Yeshuah”].
Behold, God is Jesus; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become Jesus.

Isa 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation [ישועה/Yeshuah] unto the end of the earth.
I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be Jesus.

In light of this observation, it would seem that statements like "Jesus is our Saviour" is actually bordering on a tautology... being equivalent to "our salvation is our Saviour". :smile:

[Uriah-]

The Messiah's name is not Yeshuah, the person is raping the Scriptures.

Yeshua is Aramaic, and I am not sure what Yeshua means in Aramaic.

But in Hebrew Yeshua DOES NOT mean "YHVH is Salvation." So by stating that his Hebrew name is Yeshua you rape him of his true name which is Yehoshua. And Yehoshua means "YHVH is Salvation."

If you ask me, the guy doesn't know jack about Hebrew, but using Hebrew dictionaries and lexicons and maybe askes those who understand Hebrew what certain words mean.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 05:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139186#post139186)
Uriah-:

The Messiah's name is not Yeshuah, the person is raping the Scriptures.

Yeshua is Aramaic, and I am not sure what Yeshua means in Aramaic.

But in Hebrew Yeshua DOES NOT mean "YHVH is Salvation." So by stating that his Hebrew name is Yeshua you rape him of his true name which is Yehoshua. And Yehoshua means "YHVH is Salvation."

If you ask me, the guy doesn't know jack about Hebrew, but using Hebrew dictionaries and lexicons and maybe askes those who understand Hebrew what certain words mean.

First I did NOT say that the Messiah's name was "yeshuah" with the final "heh" And because you do not appear to have a clue about Hebrew you are the one doing any raping. I have at least studied the language.

If you do not know what "Yeshua" means in Aramaic , then how in the world can you even attempt to tell us what it does "not" mean?

Of course the full name of messiah and the successor of Moses was "Jehoshua," and the diminuitive of that name is "Yeshua," which is pronounced exactly like the word for salvation, "Yeshuah." And as I pointed out the Hebrew word for salvation "Yeshuah" is used in several OT passages which apply to "Yeshua HaMeshiach"

Since you are presuming to teach us Hebrew perhaps you could translate this passage of scripture for us.

ככלב עב-קאו כעיל שונה באולתו

[Uriah-]

I see you shut your mouth on being wrong about Obadiah 1:21 and Nehemiah 9:27, next time stick to Hebrew instead of sticking to some lexicon that doesn't let you know all the time what the Scrolls are actually saying.

I am not here to do Hebrew classes, I am here to show how your kind rapes the Scriptures. I don't mind people messing with the N.T., for it was messed with enough to not be considered perfect in any shape or form. But to go and rape Scriptures is a whole different thing.

Going back to the subject.

2nd Kings 13:5 Therefore the YHVH gave Israel a savior (Moshi’a as in Isaiah 43:11), so that they escaped from the hand of the Arameans; and the people of Israel lived in their homes as formerly. (Yehoahaz was this savior)

1st Samuel 9:16 "Tomorrow about this time I will send to you a man from the land of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him to be ruler over my people Israel. He shall save my people from the hand of the Philistines; for I have seen the suffering of my people, because their outcry has come to me." (Speaking of Saul as savior)

2nd Samuel 3:18 Now then bring it about; for YHVH has promised David: Through my servant David I will save my people Israel from the hand of the Philistines, and from all their enemies." (God would save his people by his servant David)

1st John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world. (The same way God sent Moshe, to save his people, and David etc. So he sent his servant Yehoshua to save his people)

As I said before, there are many saviors but there is only one true Savior who is the Father alone.

So far you have quite a few Moshi’im (Saviors as in Isaiah 43:11 "Moshi’a"): Nehemiah 9:27, Obadiah 1:21, and 2nd Kings 13:5.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 06:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139201#post139201)
Uriah-:

I see you shut your mouth on being wrong about Obadiah 1:21 and Nehemiah 9:27, next time stick to Hebrew instead of sticking to some lexicon that doesn't let you know all the time what the Scrolls are actually saying.

I didn't shut my mouth about anything. You didn't give me any answer. It was a diifferent but related word, "yasha" the word I have been talking about is "Yeshua"

I do have lexicons but I have been reading Hebrew for over 2 decades. You want to know what you are talking about go to Blue Letter Bible. They show the Hebrew, when you do learn something about Hebrew then come back and talk to me.

I am not here to do Hebrew classes, I am here to show how your kind rapes the Scriptures. I don't mind people messing with the N.T., for it was messed with enough to not be considered perfect in any shape or form. But to go and rape Scriptures is a whole different thing.

You are not here to do anything but show that you don't know what you are talking about. As i have shown you know diddly about the Hebrew language.

Going back to the subject. 2nd Kings 13:5 1st Samuel 9:16 2nd Samuel 3:18 1st John 4:14

So far you have quite a few Moshi’im (Saviors as in Isaiah 43:11 "Moshi’a"): Nehemiah 9:27, Obadiah 1:21, and 2nd Kings 13:5.

You have shown a lot of occurrences of the word "Yasha" but I have not been talking about that word. I have been talking about the word "Yeshua." And a better tranlation of "Yasha" is deliverer, where "Yeshua" is savior in the spiritual sense.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 02:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139135#post139135)
Uriah-:

You talk about yourself in these words. If you would have actually read the Hebrew it is neither "Yasha" nor "Yeshuah" but instead it is "Moshi'im" and the singular for that is "moshi'a" which is in Isaiah 43:11. Next time actually read the Hebrew instead of your lexicon so you won't make a fool out of yourself like you just did.


You are the one who made a fool out of yourself Actually you do not have a clue to what you are talking about. There is no such word as "moshi'ia" in Hebrew. The root word is "Yasha" the "mem" is a preposition, with the conjunction "waw" or "and." When the preposition is prefixed to the word the initial "yod" of "Yasha" loses its consonantal effect so instead of being min-w-yasha it becomes "moshi'im," with the masculine plural ending "im"

You are going to correct my Hebrew? Then read this and tell me what it means.

ככלב עב-קאו כעיל שונה באולתו

You are correct you are not here to teach Hebrew, because you cannot teach what you do not know.

[Uriah-]

I see you want to go into this vain babbling, it's okay, don't sweat so much, you have been proven wrong. Planty of experts in Hebrew who know Hebrew fluently, who grew up speaking Hebrew all agree with me that it is "Moshia" and "Moshiim", so you are just another babbler to me. I don't have time for childish games, I already made my point that many are called saviors. You are free to babble to a wall, I will not look into this thread any further, for everything that was needed to be said by me conserning saviors was already said.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 08:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139248#post139248)
Uriah-:

I see you want to go into this vain babbling, it's okay, don't sweat so much, you have been proven wrong. Planty of experts in Hebrew who know Hebrew fluently, who grew up speaking Hebrew all agree with me that it is "Moshia" and "Moshiim", so you are just another babbler to me.

There is NOT one single native Hebrew speaker in the world who will agree with you. You are simply making childish boasts you can't back up.

To further prove my point read Exodus 12:15, there you will find these Hebrew words מישראל מיום, "misrael miyom" and neither of those words exist in Hebrew either.

The first is "Israel" with the preposition "min" i.e. "from." And the second is "yom," the Hebrew word for day, also with the preposition, "min." And you will see in the English text where these are translated, "from Israel" and "from [the] day"

Now you are free to go, you are the only babbler around here. I have backed up everything I said. All you did was babble, "Yes I did. No you didn't." When you learn something about Hebrew come on back.

[Cal_Minian]

Jezz:
It seems to me that this puts unitarians into a bit of a pickle. If you are a unitarian, who is your Saviour? Is God your Saviour, or is Jesus your Saviour? If you choose Jesus as your Saviour, and you don't believe then you are violating the Bible's command that we are to acknowledge no Saviour other than God Himself. But if Jesus is not your Saviour, then what was the point of Him dying on the cross?

There is, of course, a third possibility - Jesus is God. In that case, there is no contradiction if you call both Jesus and God your saviour, because both are God. And if Jesus is God, this also means that the NT only ever calls God the Savioiur - just as the OT requires. Thus we have perfect consistency. This is, in fact, what the Bible teaches:


So unitarians, it's crunch time. Who is your Saviour?


Dear Jezz,
In Luke 2:17 Simeon blesses God and says he has seen "thy salvation," referring to Jesus. Simeon said this under the influence of the holy spirit and was not confused as to who the savior was. He also did not call Jesus God because he was the savior sent by God and he gave credit to God for sending the savior. John later (Jn 4:14) writes under inspiration that the Father was the God who sent the Son to be Saviour. John was not confused either.

Why should I be confused?


KJV Luke 2:27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and
when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, 28 Then took he him up in his arms, and
blessed God, and said, 29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: 30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

KJV 1 John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father
sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.


Kind Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

In addition to all I have stated prior:
Joh 14:1 'Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.' (A statement of equality in regards to where our faith is placed)

Joh 15:13 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his
friends.'

Again, I state that Christ is more than a mere 'pawn' which God used to salvage mankind. The significance of Christ being our "Only Savior" still needs to be adequately accounted for. I find it interesting that detractors are still employing the "temporal saviors of the OT" argument.

Now...

TS stated:

Not in regards to something else, but in a different sense. See, with salvation, John 3:17 clearly shows us that God is the source of the salvation that is being brought to the world and it is being done by means of Jesus. But have an act in saving, but Jehovah is the original source of it. He sent his Son. If that act had not been done, there would be no saving. Jesus gave up his life. If that act had not be done, there would be no saving. Both saved us in a different sense, but with God being the initial source of it.

You stated:

"Both saved us in a different sense"

Rather, both saved us employing different roles. This was in response to my last post which doesn't answer to it's points. I didn't think I would have to make my way through the entire NT in order to demonstrate that Christ's role as 'Savior' is just as significant as that of the Father. However, it appears as if that is what it would take.

Another way to look at it is this. Jesus said that only God is our Father, yet we know from Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is called Everlasting Father. Is Jesus God the Father? No he is not. But, he is now called our Everlasting Father, because of his ransom.

I don't disagree that there is a dichotomy in the example you cite above. However, I don't believe such exists in regards to the topic at hand. I made this clear in my last post.

God bless

[AVmetro]

KJV 1 John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

..Tells us "how" Christ is our Only Savior. See my prior post on page one of this thread. Also, as I stated before, you're reading far too much into the 'sent'. It fails to negate the significance of Christ's role.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 12:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139887#post139887)
IronMetro:



..Tells us "how" Christ is our Only Savior. See my prior post on page one of this thread. Also, as I stated before, you're reading far too much into the 'sent'. It fails to negate the significance of Christ's role.

Dear IronMetro,
I could not find your Scriptural support for Christ being our "only savior." Both the Father and Son are called saviour in Scripture.


Here the Father is call "the only God our Saviour" while being distinguished from Jesus through whom he saves.


ASV Jude 1:25 to the only God our Saviour, through
Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and
power, before all time, and now, and for evermore. Amen.


Kind Regards,
Cal

[Jezz]

Cal_Minian:
Dear Jezz,
In Luke 2:17 Simeon blesses God and says he has seen "thy salvation," referring to Jesus. Simeon said this under the influence of the holy spirit and was not confused as to who the savior was.
This statement proves nothing. Of course he wasn't confused, but I could equally argue that he wasn't confused because under the influence of the Holy Spirit he understood that Jesus was God in the flesh. :smile:

He also did not call Jesus God because he was the savior sent by God and he gave credit to God for sending the savior.
True, he did not call Jesus God. But he also does not say that Jesus was not God. And, given that Simeon would have understood that God was the only Saviour, Simeon would have understood that if Jesus was the Saviour sent by God, then Jesus must be God.

John later (Jn 4:14) writes under inspiration that the Father was the God who sent the Son to be Saviour. John was not confused either.
John was not confused because John clearly understood what I am trying to explain to you - that to call one the Son of God (as opposed to a son of God - a term used of angels) was to make that person was equal with God.

For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (John 5:18)

As I pointed out in another thread (and a point to which you never responded in that thread), here John simply states that to call oneself the Son of God was to make oneself equal with God. John states this as a matter of fact. If it were not a matter of fact, but rather a misunderstanding on the part of the Pharisees (which is itself extremely unlikely), then John would have written instead something along the lines of: "but he was even calling God his own Father, by which they thought he was making himself equal with God".

Why should I be confused?
Because God said that He alone was the Saviour - ie, the one who granted eternal life. Yet according to your interpretation, He apparently assigned someone other than Himself to do be the Saviour on His behalf. Why? Was God not capable of doing it Himself?

God calls Himself the only Creator. God never assigned anyone else to do the creation for him - He never shares the glory for such an important task with anyone else. When God says that He is the only Creator, He means exactly that.

Likewise, when God calls Himself the only Saviour (and by this, He means the one who grants eternal life), I find it hard to believe he would share the glory for such an important task with someone else. Ie, when God calls Himself the only Saviour, I believe He meant exactly what He said.

Given the evidence pointing to the fact that God called Himself the only Saviour, and that Jesus is also called the Saviour (not merely a saviour, as are other characters in the Bible are), this is a contradiction unless one accepts that Jesus is God. If one does not accept that Jesus is God, then this contradiction remains.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 06:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140625#post140625)
Jezz:

Given the evidence pointing to the fact that God called Himself the only Saviour, and that Jesus is also called the Saviour (not merely a saviour, as are other characters in the Bible are), this is a contradiction unless one accepts that Jesus is God. If one does not accept that Jesus is God, then this contradiction remains.

Dear Jezz,
Jehovah is the ultimate source of Salvation. Notice (below) that in Isaiah 19:20 he said he would send them a savior and in 43:3 where he calls himself the Savior?

Jehovah sent them Cyrus who was also called messiah (see Isaiah 45) and in the greater fulfillment of Isaiah 19:20 this is a Messianic prophecy. Also please note that if Jehovah is sending the saviour he is being distinguished from the one he sends as in John 4:14 (see below). If you do not agree that the Father is distinguished from the Son then you are a modalist and not a Trinitarian.


ASV Isaiah 19:20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto
Jehovah of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they shall cry unto
Jehovah because of oppressors, and he will send them a saviour,
and a defender, and he will deliver them.

ASV 1 John 4:14 And we have beheld and bear witness
that the Father hath sent the Son to be the Saviour of the
world.

ASV Isaiah 43:3 For I am Jehovah thy God, the Holy One of Israel,
thy Saviour; I have given Egypt as thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba in thy stead.


Kind Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

I could not find your Scriptural support for Christ being our "only savior." Both the Father and Son are called saviour in Scripture.

Christ being the "only Savior" is not to the exclusion of the Father as our "only Savior". I'm a Trinitarian. That's the point.

Here the Father is call "the only God our Saviour" while being distinguished from Jesus through whom he saves.

And in Jude 4 Christ is referred to as our "Only Sovereign Lord". Does this exclude the Father? No.

Jehovah is the ultimate source of Salvation. Notice (below) that in Isaiah 19:20 he said he would send them a savior and in 43:3 where he calls himself the Savior?

Jehovah sent them Cyrus who was also called messiah (see Isaiah 45) and in the greater fulfillment of Isaiah 19:20 this is a Messianic prophecy. Also please note that if Jehovah is sending the saviour he is being distinguished from the one he sends as in John 4:14 (see below). If you do not agree that the Father is distinguished from the Son then you are a modalist and not a Trinitarian.

This assumes that because the Father is identified as being "Jehovah" that this is to the exclusion of the Son as being "Jehovah". You must assume Unitarianism for this to work. But see Zech14:3-4..cf..Acts1:10-11. See where the Father identifies the Son as 'kurios' in Heb1:10 (See the reference in the LXX) which is used to denote the Tetra, YHWH.

ASV 1 John 4:14 And we have beheld and bear witness
that the Father hath sent the Son to be the Saviour of the
world.

This only serves to support our point. See my past post on Isaiah. Your emphasis on "sent" does not negate our argument as it is not in the sense of a mere "pawn".

God bless

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 02:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140823#post140823)
Cal_Minian:

Dear Jezz,
Jehovah is the ultimate source of Salvation. Notice (below) that in Isaiah 19:20 he said he would send them a savior and in 43:3 where he calls himself the Savior?

Jehovah sent them Cyrus who was also called messiah (see Isaiah 45) and in the greater fulfillment of Isaiah 19:20 this is a Messianic prophecy. Also please note that if Jehovah is sending the saviour he is being distinguished from the one he sends as in John 4:14 (see below). If you do not agree that the Father is distinguished from the Son then you are a modalist and not a Trinitarian.

ASV Isaiah 19:20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto Jehovah of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they shall cry unto Jehovah because of oppressors, and he will send them a saviour, and a defender, and he will deliver them.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Note, in Isaiah 45 the word "meshiach" does NOT have the definite article. It is "a meschiah", i.e. "an anointed one" NOT "The Anointed One." Also note in the quote above "a savior" NOT "The Savior" And we will pass for the moment that the Hebrew word "Yeshuah" is used in passages which refer to "The Meschiach" In other passages it is the root word, "yasha" And OBTW Jesus' name in Hebrew is "Yeshua" pronounced exactly like the word for "savior."

[Jezz]

Cal_Minian:
Dear Jezz,
Hey Cal,

I read that you were leaving TWeb, but I noticed that you have posted something today so I am making this post in the hope that you might read it and perhaps respond.

Jehovah is the ultimate source of Salvation.
Ok Cal, I've been thinking about your explanation for the last few days, and I want to make get this straight to make sure I am understanding your position correctly.

What you are saying is, that although Jesus is called the Saviour, this does not mean that Salvation originates with him. Instead, Salvation originates with the Father, and Jesus is merely the vessel through whom the Father provides his salvation.

In other words, only the Father can be called the source of eternal salvation, or the author of eternal salvation. There would only be a conflict from the unitarian point of view if Jesus was called the source or author of eternal salvation, because from the unitarian point of view Jesus is merely the vessel on Earth through whom the Father delivers eternal salvation. However, because Jesus plays such an important part in Jehovah's salvation process, it is still proper to refer to him as the Saviour.

Is this what you mean Cal? That there is no conflict between God being the only Saviour and Jesus being called Saviour too, because only God is the source and Jesus is just the vessel? Eternal salvation does not originate in Jesus himself? If I've got this correct, you can respond with a simple "yes" if you'd like, unless you feel I've misrepresented you in some way.

(I'd ask my fellow Trinitarians, if they are reading this, to refrain from responding to this post for now. For now I just want to make sure I am interpeting Cal correctly.)