Is Jesus God or a god?

[Bill the Cat]

Sorry Viv, but recent finds at Ugarit rebut your view. Elohim was a neuter noun in the Ugaritic pre-Canaanite view where the Hebrew language stemmed. Word studies show that elohim was simply a word meaning "authority" in the Ugaritic pantheon, and had no gender. It could be used of male or female deity in reference to the authority they weilded over man.

[xcav8tor]

Hi evantisin,

There are numerous instances in the Old Testament where it states that God used "the Word of the Lord" (i.e. "the Word of God") and "the angel of the Lord" interchangeably to speak with the patriarchs and appear in theophany... In terms of the pre-incarnate Jesus being archangel Michael, New Testament events concerning the Resurrection correlate with one another over the identity of Jesus and Michael.

Let me set the record straight. Michael the Archangel IS NOT (stress on the "is not") THE Angel of the LORD. As one of the angels, Michael is a CREATED BEING, whereas Jesus is the direct "HANDS ON" CREATOR of Heaven and Earth (Heb. 1:8-10 - as I pointed out earlier, the word "through" IS NOT used in this text), and of the angels (Col. 1:16).

The author of Hebrews asks, "For UNTO WHICH OF THE ANGELS said he AT ANY TIME, Thou art MY SON, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." Heb. 1:5-6 The answer to this rhetorical question is obviously - NONE. The SON of GOD is therefore NOT AN ANGEL and therefore NOT MICHAEL.

Consider Jude 1:9 NKJV: Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, DARED NOT bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" This clearly shows that Michael's power and status are not even as great as Satan's, let alone Christ's. This in itself shows He IS NOT the same person as Jesus. Also, while Michael is mentioned in both OT and NT, "THE Angel of the LORD" is no longer seen after Christ is born. In addition, both Jesus and Michael appear in the Book of Revelation (Jesus as The Word of God, Rev. 19:13 / Michael in Rev. 12:7, cp Dan. 12:1). Since they are both around at the same time, they CANNOT BE the same person.

On the other hand, "THE Angel of the LORD," IS the LORD. A THEOPHANY. A physical manifestation of God in the Second Person of the Trinity PRIOR to His incarnation. THE Angel of the LORD is "One-of-a-Kind," whereas Michael is "One of Many" (Dan. 10:13). Note that when speaking, "THE Angel of the LORD" seldom passes on a message from GOD (The Father), but most of the time speaks as YAHWEH Himself.

I will provide just 2 examples to prove my point (with an explanation of how I understand the text as a Trinitarian):

THE Angel appears to ABRAHAM Gen. 22:10-18

And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here [am] I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me. And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind [him] a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said [to] this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

Here the pre-incarnate Son of God, as "THE Angel of the LORD" is telling Abraham that He knows Abraham fears GOD (The Father) because Abraham has not withheld Isaac "FROM ME" (YAHWEH The SON). This implies the command to sacrifice Isaac in Gen. 22:1 came from GOD THE SON.

And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son]: That in blessing I will bless thee , and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Here the pre-incarnate Christ continues, but now quotes GOD the Father ("saith the LORD"). Abraham is blessed by GOD The Father for obeying "My voice" (GOD The Son, Who is The WORD of God).

THE Angel appears to MOSES Exo. 3:2-16

And the angel of the LORD appeared # unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush [was] not consumed. And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here [am] I. And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest [is] holy ground. Moreover he said, I [am] the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites. Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me: and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them. Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt. And Moses said unto God, Who [am] I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt? And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this [shall be] a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.

And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this [is] my name for ever, and this [is] my memorial unto all generations. Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God # of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared # unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and [seen] that which is done to you in Egypt.

He is referred to as The "ANGEL" of the LORD because He appeared in the likeness of an angel, but His speech reveals that it is YAHWEH Himself and not a created being. This is why the people in the OT who saw "THE Angel of the LORD" say that they SAW YAHWEH. (Thanks for providing the texts in your post - it saves me the trouble of doing so here).

That THE SON OF GOD appeared in the OT as THE ANGEL OF THE LORD was taught by the Early Church Fathers:

From the writings of Moses also this will be manifest; for thus it is written in them, "And the Angel of God spake to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers; go down into Egypt, and bring forth My people." And if you wish to learn what follows, you can do so from the same writings; for it is impossible to relate the whole here. But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race, He endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, "And the angel of God spake to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," yet maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe. Whence also the Spirit of prophecy rebukes them, and says, "Israel doth not know Me, my people have not understood Me."

Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63

Paul acknowledges that at the time of the Day of Judgment, Jesus will say this command, further disclosing that Jesus will have the "voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God:"

1 Thessalonians 4:14-17

"WITH," as in "ACCOMPANIED BY" the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet call of God. This is not saying that Jesus' voice is the archangel's voice, any more than it is saying He is a trumpet call.

Altogether, the Old Testament and New Testament fit together over Jesus Christ's existence. The puzzle pieces fit and the discussions and narratives of scripture are supported by one another.

Yes, they DO FIT, yet you still don't see the big picture. Jesus is God as much as the Father and the Spirit are God. Jesus IS the CREATOR and is therefore God. He appeared in the OT as THE Angel of the LORD and was recognized AS GOD by those who saw Him. When He was INCARNATED, He was STILL GOD, having taking upon Himself human form. After His resurrection, His glory was restored (Phil. 2:5-11 NASB) and He CONTINUES to BE GOD.

You are so close to the truth, and yet you resist it - apparently because the Bible does not spell it out like a doctrinal statement. If that's what you are looking for, you are out of luck.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[xcav8tor]

Hi evantisin,

You keep posting questions faster than I can respond, but I will try to give you a few quick answers here.

How can two "persons," one that "can be seen and has been seen" and another "whom no man hath seen, nor can see" be one and the same? Nobody has ever seen God, but people have also seen God?

They CAN'T BE THE SAME PERSON, but they can be the same THING. God is 3 WHOs and 1 WHAT. GOD IS SPIRIT, so the Father, Son and Spirit in their DIVINE ESSENCE cannot be seen. HOWEVER, since The SON has taken on an ADDITIONAL human nature, GOD THE SON CAN and HAS been SEEN. Before His incarnation He took on a temporary Angelic form as THE Angel of the LORD, and that is how GOD WAS SEEN in the OT. Jesus is the tangible, visible manifestation of the INVISIBLE GOD - in BOTH TESTAMENTS.

"Lord of lords and King of kings," although attributed to Jesus, is a title of God's that Jesus is holding.

It is all too apparent from this statement that even if the scripture EXPLICITLY called Jesus "GOD ALMIGHTY" or "THE ONLY TRUE GOD" you would simply write it off as saying, "Oh, that is just a title of God's that Jesus is holding." IOW, you have thus isolated yourself from the truth no matter how God has chosen to reveal it. Good luck with that when it's your turn to stand before God as you try to explain how He wasn't clear enough and should have picked His words more carefully.

Yet, attributing "Lord of lords and king of kings" as a designation of a common existence with God as God is not problematic?

No, because although it still gets the point across, it is less inflammatory to those who don't yet believe.

Yes, but not God himself. Isaiah 9:6 says that the Messiah would be an "Everlasting Father," but Jesus was "the Son." Does this mean that the "Father" is also "Son"?

I have read that the Hebrew of "Everlasting Father" here can be interpreted as "Father of Eternity," father as in "paternal source." This being the case, it is just saying that Jesus is the source of unending time, clearly implying His Deity.

And of course it doesn't mean the "Father" is also the "Son," and you know this as well as I.

[xcav8tor: Correct. And since in this context it is talking about the ULTIMATE ALPHA/BEGINNING/FIRST and the ULTIMATE OMEGA/END/LAST, it is clear that there can ONLY BE ONE ENTITY IN VIEW... yet TWO PERSONS are named. We are left to connect the dots.]

What about the Holy Spirit?

There's no point going there until you first acknowledge Christ's full deity. After that, the Holy Spirit's role is easily sorted out. You need to respond to this evidence first.

Originally posted by xcav8tor
*i dont out and out reject the trinity. i think those who believe it certainly have a case for it in scripture. i just happen to believe there are two persons. if i'm wrong, god can and will reveal it to me, but my view of two persons can also be backed by scripture. believing in the trinity is not essential for salvation.

THIS QUOTE WAS NOT FROM ME (perhaps it was clark? I don't have time to track it down). You will have to address those questions to someone else.

I do understand the difference between "being" or "entity" and "person" (or "essence") in the Trinity's philosophy, but I'd like to express that this distinction makes the idea of God's existence complex beyond what the scripture simply states.

It seems you don't because "essence" IS NOT equivalent to "person." Essence refers to one's ""nature or "being" - the "stuff" one is "made of." "Person" refers to one's mind or consciousness. This does not complicate things - it corrects a popular misconception that prevents people from understanding what is a fairly simple truth. I went over all this in the opening posts on the Basketball Court (Trinity vs 3 Separate Gods). There is no point me repeating it all again here.

Creating doctrine over "Dear Timothy" and "Sincerely, Paul" is not exactly strong scriptural support of beliefs.

Cute, but not applicable. The salutations to the recipients are not the evidence. The titles which Paul, Peter and John carefully ascribed to Christ ARE, and they are in harmony with the testimony of entire NT.

After all, why not take the letters' testimony that "there is but one God, the Father," (1 Corinthians 8:6) as meaning God the Father is the only true God and "the firstborn over all creation" (Colossians 1:15) as meaning Jesus was created?

Because of CONTEXT. Calling the Father the "One True God" is a fact, but it does not rule out other persons in the Godhead AS LONG AS THEY ARE THE SAME ENTITY, and since the Son and the Spirit ARE THE SAME ONE TRUE GOD, there is no problem.

I'm sure it has already been explained to you that "firstborn" CANNOT BE TRANSLATED as "first created." That is a DIFFERENT GREEK WORD ALTOGETHER. Firstborn PRIMARILY means PREEMINENT - regardless of birth order. Please DO NOT use that argument any more.

I already know how you understand Colossians 1:15, but what about 1 Corinthians 8:6? The only God is the Father. Does that mean Jesus, "God the Son," is the Father?

You're joking with me, right? The verse also says "yet for us there is but... one Lord, Jesus Christ. Are you going to argue now that God the Father IS NOT LORD? Please tell me I don't have to look those verses up for you.

Do I really have to tell you that, "No, it doesn't mean that Jesus if the Father"?

I'm suggesting that there is a distinction between the two, as the language and logic of it all implies.

OF COURSE THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEM - but the distinction pertains to them AS INDIVIDUAL PERSONS, NOT TO THEM AS BEING SEPARATE ENTITIES. It is part of the doctrine of the Trinity that they are distinct PERSONS.

If Jesus and God are both the Creator, then there shouldn't be a distinction between them.

Actually there CAN be a distinction between them, based on their ROLES in Creation. God the FATHER is the ARCHITECT, God the SON is the BUILDER. I get the feeling you forgot this because you do not want to understand.

Can we call "God the Son" "God the Father?" Why not? The Father and the Son worked together as "Creators" and both are "God." Why can't they be the same thing?

THEY ARE the same "THING" - GOD. But THEY ARE NOT the same "PERSON." It's NOT THAT DIFFICULT!

Furthermore, Jesus and God as Co-creators implies Binitarianism. Why is the Holy Spirit consistently left out of the Trinity? One would expect there to be equality and oneness in their existence as "one God."

Dealt with above.

It is illogical to "pour out" God or a "person" capable of thinking. This also says that the Holy Spirit was at multiple places and in different people at once. This sounds more like it's a thing (or possibly a number of spirits), rather than one "person" of the Trinity Godhead.

If you would refer to the specific post and the thread I told you about, you will have the answer to these questions.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[spitndirt]

xcav8tor said,

I'm sure it has already been explained to you that "firstborn" CANNOT BE TRANSLATED as "first created." That is a DIFFERENT GREEK WORD ALTOGETHER. Firstborn PRIMARILY means PREEMINENT - regardless of birth order. Please DO NOT use that argument any more.

Neither can "firstborn" be translated as "existing in eternity past". I agree that the term is not to be confused with "created". Adam was created, who, according to Paul was a pattern of the One to come - Jesus.

The point you seem to be missing is that Jesus was "born". Not only this but he was born mortal...of mortal woman...in the fullness of time. From these truths come the truth that you have offered - that Jesus is "firstborn" by preeminence regardless of chronological order of birth. However, Jesus is the *firstborn* of God because he is *the only begotten* of God (Father). All others receive the spirit of adoption through the one and only Son.

In short, you cannot claim that the terms "firstborn" and "begotten" carry definitions that exclude "physical conception and birth". To the contrary, these are why the terms exist at all. IOW, to say that these terms prove that a Father, Son, and Spirit co-exist eternally with or without creation is quite a leap.

[spitndirt]

evantisin said

After all, why not take the letters' testimony that "there is but one God, the Father," (1 Corinthians 8:6) as meaning God the Father is the only true God and "the firstborn over all creation" (Colossians 1:15) as meaning Jesus was created?

First, Jesus was not created.....he was *begotten*. In the same way that we are begotten, not created. Adam was created and Eve taken from his side. All others have been *begotten*. The difference between us and Jesus is that our fathers are descendants of Adam. Jesus on the other hand was born of Mary via the seed of God's Word (Logos). His natural father is God.

Also....Jesus himself called his Father "...the only true God...". Why should we say anything different, huh??? There is no need.....

[evantisin]

Actually, it is talking about WHO JESUS IS. John 10:24-30

24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? IF THOU BE THE CHRIST, TELL US PLAINLY.

25 JESUS ANSWERED THEM, I TOLD YOU, AND YE BELIEVED NOT: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

.....

39 THEREFORE THEY SOUGHT AGAIN TO TAKE HIM: but he escaped out of their hand.

To interpret this scripture as if the Jews simply misunderstood Jesus makes no sense. They charged Him with claiming to be God, and He did not say they were mistaken in understanding His claim, but rather that THEY WERE MISTAKEN IN NOT RECOGNIZING HIS CLAIM WAS VALID.

The Jews did misunderstand Jesus. That chapter of John plainly states that that was the case:

John 10:6-7

6Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.

7Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.

Jesus was claiming to be the Christ and the God's Son. They repeatedly misunderstood and ended up rejecting him. If they understood clearly, then why didn't they follow Jesus? Why didn't Jesus accept them as his disciples? If they truly understood who Jesus was claiming to be, then they wouldn't have tried to kill him afterward (John 10:39), unlike Jesus' disciples who did understand:

Matthew 16:13-17

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

With John 10:35, Jesus is saying that the title could fit with him, but does not make a claim over that. Rather, he states that what he said was "Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?" In John 10:34-36, Jesus is saying that the Jews had no trouble over human beings being called "gods," as it says in the scriptures, so they shouldn't have any trouble with Jesus calling himself something subordinate to that: "God's Son."

In John 10:34, Jesus was saying that they shouldn't have a problem with God calling human beings "gods," which is from Psalm 82:6 and is an address that figuratively characterizes the human beings.

If this is to be interpreted as meaning that Jesus said it was ok for him to be called "God," too (John 10:35), then why not those in Psalm 82:6? Why not everyone?

As he affirms in John 10:35, he was claiming to be God's Son ("the Son of God") and also the Christ in John 10:24-26. Such claims had already been done, and Jesus rightly calls himself the Son of God. In 1 Chronicles 17:10-14 and 1 Chronicles 22:9-10, God said in his covenant with King David that his successor will build God's temple and that God "will be his father, and he will be my son."

1 Chronicles 17:10-14

10 and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also subdue all your enemies.
" 'I declare to you that the LORD will build a house for you: 11 When your days are over and you go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He is the one who will build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever. 13 I will be his father, and he will be my son. I will never take my love away from him, as I took it away from your predecessor. 14 I will set him over my house and my kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever.' "

This had already been attributed to Solomon, successor to King David:

1 Chronicles 28:6

6 He said to me: 'Solomon your son is the one who will build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.

So too, this passage of the covenant was attributed to Jesus (Hebrews 1:5). This is why Jesus is called "Son of David" in the Gospel narratives rather than "Son of Solomon" or "Son of Rehoboam." Can you see the relationship being expressed? Jesus even said that that's why he came: to fulfill messianic prophecy over inheriting the throne of King David; he came to be King (John 18:37).

John 18:37

37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

Jesus did not make claims out of nowhere. He was fulfilling messianic prophecy; fulfilling scripture. The New Testament is practically dependent upon Old Testament prophecy.

Many references to previous scripture were made throughout the New Testament. One ought to keep the Old Testament in mind when interpreting New Testament scriptural references to it. After all, the Old Testament is meant to be read first and then the New. There is some context to what's being said in the Gospel narratives.

Aside from scriptural references, it is apparent that the Jews misunderstood Jesus, as John plainly states in John 10:6-7.

Jesus was there to claim to be the Christ, the anointed one of the covenant with David. Why would he want to claim to be God? That's idolatry and unscriptural. God has killed those who claim to be a god a number of times in the scriptures. In Ezekiel 28:6-10, he laments over the King of Tyre's claim to be a god and says he will have him killed. Why? Such a claim is a lie. It is impossible for a human being to be God.

Jesus never claimed to be God. He claimed to be the Christ, the Anointed One (the King to inherit David's throne and God's Son) and was repeatedly misunderstood (John 10:6-7).

But that's the point. As the Father's ONLY BEGOTTEN/ ONE-AND-ONLY SON, Jesus has the SAME NATURE AS HIS FATHER (Phil. 2:5-6 NASB - the FORM of GOD). The "oneness" we have with the Father and Son is not that of ontology, but of fellowship, agreement and purpose.

If Jesus had the same nature as his Father, then why did he die? How do you explain that? In what way did Jesus have the same nature as his Father; the same nature as God?

Is that anything like SHARING a sandwich without GIVING it? I think it's safe to conclude that God is not going to share His inherent Divine glory with ANY CREATURE. He does however, share it equally with HIS SON. John 17:5

When you share a sandwich, you're not giving the whole thing away, are you?

How does John 17:5 imply that God's glory was equally shared?

John 17:5

5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

In Romans 8:17 and 2 Thessalonians 2:14, Apostle Paul states those who believe in Jesus share in his glory. Does this mean that the glory of God is given to his believers?

The Father has a throne which He shares with The Son - the throne "of God AND OF the Lamb." It is also referred to the Father's throne - and rightly so. Jesus also has a separate earthly throne. This view seems to meet with all the scriptural facts.

God and the Lamb do not sit on the same throne. Two "persons" sitting on the same throne doesn't make sense. Add to that the fact that another "person" (the Holy Spirit) of the being does not?

Jesus Christ's throne is inherited from God. The two of them do not sit on the same one at the same time. God's throne is sovereign beyond that of Jesus'. The Son/Lamb simply sits on the throne of God in the sense that he is inheriting God's heavenly kingdom for kingship, like how King Solomon sat "on the throne of the LORD" in place of his father King David (1 Chronicles 29:23). Jesus Christ did this too, didn't he?

That's not what the verse says, It says:

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

HIM refers to "the Word" in verse 1 and 2. This is simple grammar.

verse 1 says that the Word WAS God. so you are trying to make a false dichotomy. The three persons of the Godhead are involved in the creation, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But all are the SAME GOD.

Isaiah says that God created ALONE, so there is no way he could create THROUGH someone.

Isaiah 44:24 "This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself

God says he created the earth and heavens BY HIMSELF, not with someone or through someone, and yet we have John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 saying that Jesus, the Word created everything.

Even if we allow as a "helper" as you try to suggest that violates what God said in Isaiah where he says he did it by himself. Your idea makes God into a liar.

And John 1:3 says that nothing that has been made was made without him. That means that the word cannot be created. he cant create himself.

Jesus was never an actual God. The Word, the pre-incarnate Jesus having existed as "a god" is simply a title.

God called Moses a god and said he turned him into one (Exodus 7:1). That doesn't mean Moses was an actual God.

God had no "co-creator" or "helper." God created alone, but did use the Word as more of a tool than as a "co-creator." It can be said that the Word was a kind of "helper," but that's not to say it took part in God's creative process.

The Holy Spirit and the Son did not take part as creators in Creation.

Where in the scriptures does it say that the Holy Spirit was a Creator?

funny how you try to find a version that agree with you, and try to claim it is "more accurate" simply on the fact that you like that version better.

Have you ever looked into textual criticism before?

I suggest you do and see why key manuscripts and translations differ from one another. For example, there's the Comma Johanneum of the King James Version and unreliability of the Septuagint in comparison to the Hebrew texts.

If you have any curiosity in textual criticism, you'll find that it brings light to the larger context of the scriptures.

There is no question that the point of the passage is that Jesus created everything and is preeminent and has authority over all things. He is not an angel because he created the angels. God does not create using angels, because he has said that he creates alone (Isaiah 44).

God is the sole Creator. The Word of God was an angel and not involved at all in creation as a Creator of some sort. The Word is far too subordinate of existence to know the things that God knows. However, it is on equal terms with God in the sense of being God's chief spokesman, God's primary messenger angel.

The Word's being "with" God (John 1:1-2) means that creation was done outside of the Word's influences and is therefore not involved. As Isaiah 44:24 states, God created alone and did not create "with" anyone.

oh please! When Jesus said it to the pharisees he was not even speaking grammatically correct. If he were MERELY claiming to be older than Abraham he would have said "before Abraham was, I was" - he was clearly claiming to be God, that is why the Jews tried to stone him. They understood the reference perfectly

They actually didn't understand Jesus perfectly:

John 10:6

6Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.

They kept misunderstanding Jesus' claims on being the Christ and ended up being divided over him.

John 10:19-20

19At these words the Jews were again divided. 20Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?"

If they did understand who Jesus claimed to be, they wouldn't have tried to kill him (John 10:39).

On the other hand, Jesus Christ's disciples did understand who he was and did not feel hostility to him (Matthew 16:15-17). They would not persecute Jesus and instead would accept him.

You are suggesting that the Jews in John 10 truly did understand him? Did they do the right thing by intending to stone and kill Jesus? Did they truly understand who Jesus claimed to be and thus would gain salvation in the Anointed One?

Did they understand Jesus' claims well enough to know who he is? No. They misunderstood, rejected him, and desired to kill him. You can't equate the Jews' response to Jesus' claims in John 10:31-39 as being all that ideal and accurate. They would also claim that Jesus was "demon-possessed," "raving mad," a blasphemer, and a Samaritan. Was he?

Jesus did not accept them when Pilate questioned him if he were "the King of the Jews" (John 18:33-36). Jesus said that his servants would fight to prevent his arrest if his kingdom were on Earth, but the Jews did not fight to prevent his arrest. Rather, Jesus was handed over into the hands of the Gentiles to be killed so that the punishment of the death penalty for blasphemy could be used on him (John 18:28-32). Did Jesus' disciples think that he was God? If they did, why didn't they desire to kill him? Isn't that what they were supposed to have done?

Jesus came to be King (John 18:37). As the Anointed One, he would indeed be God's Son (2 Samuel 7:12-14; Hebrews 1:5). The covenant with King David doesn't say that the Anointed One to inherit King David's throne would be God.

and yet the Old testament says that YHWH will do the judging. If he entrusts someone else to judge for him, then that makes him a liar in the OT.

Joel 3:12 "Let the nations be roused; let them advance into the Valley of Jehoshaphat, for there I will sit to judge all the nations on every side." (God is speaking)

Ezekiel 34:17 "`As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats. 20 "`Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says to them: See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep.

God says he will Judge HIMSELF, not entrust it to a subordinate. Just like he did with creation. he claims he did it by HIMSELF.

Your idea of Jesus being a stand in for God but not being God is defeated by the fact that God in the Old Testament claims he has no subordinate but will do it all HIMSELF.

The thing is, Jesus does say that God has entrusted judgment over mankind to him:

John 5:22-23

22Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

However, even Jesus Christ's area of judgment is limited:

John 12:47-49

47"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. 49For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

People who have heard Jesus Christ's testimony will be held to it come time of the Resurrection and Judgment. As in, Jesus will testify for or against those who believed in him and God will judge those who rejected Jesus.

Thus, "the Father judges no one" (John 5:22) means God (the Father) will not judge those who accept Jesus Christ. They will be under Jesus Christ's authority, which, too, was entrusted to him:

Matthew 28:18

18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Jesus is, after all, the King of the spiritual nation of Israel. His kingdom resides in heaven, not on Earth (John 18:36).

Dang you are dense. Jesus is the spiritual Rock of israel. He is the Rock in the same sense that YHWH is the Rock.


It is clear that you are merely trying to nitpick where you can, but the overall summary of scripture shows clearly that Jesus is God. The lengths you have to stretch to in order to nitpick some verses shows that you know this in your heart and are too stubborn to admit it.

If the bible wasn't trying to show that Jesus was God, then the writers (and God who inspired them) did a very, very poor job. surely God could have been clearer and kept all those troublesome verses out of the bible eh?

One or two would be a coincidence or perhaps even a translation error, but when there are literally dozens of places in the bible that show Jesus is God, the Creator, etc, then it simply overwhelms any effort to deny the fact.

It is like you driving down a road and seeing a sign that says "warning bridge out" - one such sign you might be able to ignore, but when you see literally dozens of signs claiming that there is danger ahead and no bridge, you are an idiot to ignore them.

actually, no you would not "appreciate it" since we already DID that:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=577

and you seem to just want to nitpick more verses by comparing various english translations till you can find one that says something different instead of taking the whole of scripture into account and seeing that the entire bible shows that Jesus is God and you can't piece meal it into isolated proof texts for your amusement.

I apologize if I offended. I only meant that last question as a joke.

Verses like 1 Corinthians 8:6, John 14:28, Numbers 23:19, and Malachi 3:6 are not so straight-forward about God's sovereign existence?

Yes, it can definitely be said that there are many verses that say Jesus is God, and many verses that say Jesus was simply a man and even that the Word would exist as an archangel.

I'd simply like to continue questioning basic theology derived from the scriptures and see if they actually hold up to the scriptures well enough. There may be contradictions of most any doctrine in some sense or another, but having a stronger understanding of the larger context of the scriptures clears up whatever contradiction may arise.

I don't find issue with Catholicism because it does not regard sola scriptura so highly. It involves Apostolic tradition and is one of the integral parts of the religion. On the other hand, one of the tenets of Protestantism is sola scriptura, but it doesn't seem like there are all that many Protestant groups that have bothered to read the scriptures from beginning to end and form their doctrines straight from the scriptures, from verse 1 of the first chapter of Genesis to the end of Revelation. One often hears Protestantism advocate sola fide (Galatians 2:16), but ignore scripture that teaches it is absolutely necessary to put faith into practice (James 2:14 and the rest of James 2). Many call foul on Jehovah's Witnesses' practice of disfellowshiping, yet Jesus taught it (Matthew 18:15-17) and Paul taught it (1 Corinthians 5:4-5; 1 Corinthians 5:9-13; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15). Sola scriptura means being able to interpret everything in the scriptures. The scripture is right there. One might as well take it into consideration and put it in the appropriate context.

Sola scriptura also means keeping a religion's beliefs derived from the scriptures as, of course, purely those from the scriptures themselves. The Trinity is a philosophy that is unscriptural. I can tell this straight from the start because many explanations of it lack scriptural support, instead going into their own philosophy behind it.

The scriptures are straight-forward enough in conveying their teachings, right?

Going through the Bible from beginning to end, would one get the idea that there is a triune God? Does the Bible teach the Trinity? Or are people teaching the Trinity philosophy that the Gentile church fathers could familiarize themselves with and look into scripture to back up their (good and wonderful, actually) characterizations of God as actual scriptural facts.

If you don't want to discuss the Trinity, then that's certainly alright with me. I respect that and I won't bother you with my questions anymore.

[Sparko]

Jesus was never an actual God. The Word, the pre-incarnate Jesus having existed as "a god" is simply a title.

God called Moses a god and said he turned him into one (Exodus 7:1). That doesn't mean Moses was an actual God.

God had no "co-creator" or "helper." God created alone, but did use the Word as more of a tool than as a "co-creator." It can be said that the Word was a kind of "helper," but that's not to say it took part in God's creative process.

first, please stop lumping replies to me in with your replies to other people. I have no wish to respond to your responses to them, and it makes your posts too long to read. not to mention it is very rude.

You said God created 'through' the Word (Jesus) just like he did using angels, but now that I have shown you that your idea is false because the bible says that NOTHING that was made was made without him, you are trying to back off and change your story again. Well it still doesn't work. God did not use "tools" to create. He spoke and the universe began to exist. "Let there be light" and there was light. Isaiah said he created the earth by himself. Not using other people or creatures, even as tools.

If you would like to actually PROVE your hypothosis with scripture showing that God used tools to create then please do. Until then scripture contradicts you.

The Holy Spirit and the Son did not take part as creators in Creation.

They did according to scripture. You can deny it all you want but John 1 and Col 1 both say that Jesus is the creator.

Where in the scriptures does it say that the Holy Spirit was a Creator?

Genesis 1

Have you ever looked into textual criticism before?

yes I have and tossing out a bunch of ENGLISH translations is NOT textual criticism by any means. That you think it is shows how arrogant and ignorant you truly are.

If you have any curiosity in textual criticism, you'll find that it brings light to the larger context of the scriptures.

Perhaps you should do some real study instead of reading cult material that tries to pass itself off as scholarly.

God is the sole Creator. The Word of God was an angel and not involved at all in creation as a Creator of some sort. The Word is far too subordinate of existence to know the things that God knows. However, it is on equal terms with God in the sense of being God's chief spokesman, God's primary messenger angel.

again, you are contradicted by Col 1 which says that the Son created everything in Heaven and on Earth. and everything holds together by his power. That seems an awful lot like God, not some angel to me.

The Word's being "with" God (John 1:1-2) means that creation was done outside of the Word's influences and is therefore not involved. As Isaiah 44:24 states, God created alone and did not create "with" anyone.

John 1:3 says that nothing that was made was made without the Word. That kinda means that the Word MUST be God (like John 1:1 says) or God is a liar in Isaiah. There is no middle ground, no matter how many times you try to assert such things (without scriptural backing either)

They actually didn't understand Jesus perfectly:

John 10:6

6Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.

They kept misunderstanding Jesus' claims on being the Christ and ended up being divided over him.

Well you obviously don't understand Jesus or John or Isaiah. Pray for understanding and wisdom.

You are suggesting that the Jews in John 10 truly did understand him? Did they do the right thing by intending to stone and kill Jesus? Did they truly understand who Jesus claimed to be and thus would gain salvation in the Anointed One?

They clearly understood that he was claiming to be God.

John 10:33
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

[Vivian]

Sorry Viv, but recent finds at Ugarit rebut your view. Elohim was a neuter noun in the Ugaritic pre-Canaanite view where the Hebrew language stemmed. Word studies show that elohim was simply a word meaning "authority" in the Ugaritic pantheon, and had no gender. It could be used of male or female deity in reference to the authority they weilded over man.

Sorry Bill, but this discovery does not in any way negate what was offered in my post.

Isn't there a term often used on Tweb that refers to this sort of picking out of something insignificant in a post and trying to use it to discredit the major point of the post?

Isn't that a straw man?

If you or anyone is truly interested in discussing what has been offered I would be happy to discuss it with you.

Shalom.

Viv

[xcav8tor]

Hi spitndirt,

Neither can "firstborn" be translated as "existing in eternity past". I agree that the term is not to be confused with "created". Adam was created, who, according to Paul was a pattern of the One to come - Jesus.

Can you show me where I said that the word "firstborn" can be translated as "existing in eternity past"? I believe Col. 1:17 NASB clearly shows that Jesus had to exist in eternity past (in order to be "before all things") as does John 1:1-3 NASB (WAS, Greek "hen," = continued to be) and John 8:58 NASB ("I AM," not "I was"), but I would never think to use "firstborn" in Col. 1:15 NASB to show this.

The point you seem to be missing is that Jesus was "born". Not only this but he was born mortal...of mortal woman...in the fullness of time. From these truths come the truth that you have offered - that Jesus is "firstborn" by preeminence regardless of chronological order of birth. However, Jesus is the *firstborn* of God because he is *the only begotten* of God (Father). All others receive the spirit of adoption through the one and only Son.

Not at all. In fact I celebrate Christmas every year - complete with Birthday Cake. I agree that Jesus was born with a fully human, mortal nature. (Heb. 2:14-18 NASB / Phil. 2:6-8 NASB)

In short, you cannot claim that the terms "firstborn" and "begotten" carry definitions that exclude "physical conception and birth". To the contrary, these are why the terms exist at all. IOW, to say that these terms prove that a Father, Son, and Spirit co-exist eternally with or without creation is quite a leap.

I believe I acknowledged the validity of the definition of "first one born" when I said, "Firstborn PRIMARILY means PREEMINENT - regardless of birth order." I did not say it ONLY means preeminent, just that in Col. 1:15-18 NASB the context shows this was the intended meaning since as the Creator and Sustainer of all things, Jesus would be indisputably preeminent over His creation.

Neither did I argue that "firstborn" and "begotten" prove that the Father, Son and Spirit co-exist eternally. I DID say that these terms in reference to Christ show that Jesus is UNIQUELY THE SON OF GOD, and that He therefore equally shares the nature of The Father's Deity - just as we receive a human nature from our earthly fathers (by virtue of being begotten of them). (John 5:18 NASB / Mat. 26:63-65 NASB)

Regards,
xcav8tor

[evantisin]

Hi xcav8tor,

Let me set the record straight. Michael the Archangel IS NOT (stress on the "is not") THE Angel of the LORD. As one of the angels, Michael is a CREATED BEING, whereas Jesus is the direct "HANDS ON" CREATOR of Heaven and Earth (Heb. 1:8-10 - as I pointed out earlier, the word "through" IS NOT used in this text), and of the angels (Col. 1:16).

"WITH," as in "ACCOMPANIED BY" the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet call of God. This is not saying that Jesus' voice is the archangel's voice, any more than it is saying He is a trumpet call.

Jesus Christ and Michael the Archangel are created beings.

That is, "the Word" was begotten rather than formally created, but nevertheless didn't always exist and thus "created." "The Word of God" is not exactly a name. "The Word" denotes its function. "Michael" is a possible name and identity it was known by.

Jesus, having used to exist as "the Word of God," was very likely, in that sense, an angel. A great angel, like an archangel. Was "the Word of God" not a messenger?

Attributing the identity of Michael is inferred by what the scriptures points out about Michael and Jesus, and they are quite similar in the actions they would take. There are further hints at the similarities, like the Isaiah 9:6 prophecy that the Messiah would be called "Prince of Peace" and Daniel 10:13 saying that Michael was one of the "chief princes."

If "the Word of God" had a name and identity as an archangel, it would most likely have been Michael ("Who is like God?").

The author of Hebrews asks, "For UNTO WHICH OF THE ANGELS said he AT ANY TIME, Thou art MY SON, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." Heb. 1:5-6 The answer to this rhetorical question is obviously - NONE. The SON of GOD is therefore NOT AN ANGEL and therefore NOT MICHAEL.

God did not exalt an angel. Jesus wasn't an angel; he was a man.

As "the Word of God," the pre-incarnate Jesus used to exist as an angel.

However, when Jesus became a man, he was no longer an angel, as Hebrews also states (Hebrews 2:6-9). That's Jesus when he was Jesus the man, not when he existed as "the Word."
When Jesus existed as a man, he "was made a little lower than the angels" and, thus, was no longer "divine" in whatever sense he used to be. Also, with Jesus' existence as a man meaning that he "was made a little lower than the angels", Jesus wasn't "fully God and fully man" either. Jesus Christ the man was not divine. He was given power and authority that is completely dependent upon God (John 5:16).

Consider Jude 1:9 NKJV: Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, DARED NOT bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" This clearly shows that Michael's power and status are not even as great as Satan's, let alone Christ's. This in itself shows He IS NOT the same person as Jesus. Also, while Michael is mentioned in both OT and NT, "THE Angel of the LORD" is no longer seen after Christ is born. In addition, both Jesus and Michael appear in the Book of Revelation (Jesus as The Word of God, Rev. 19:13 / Michael in Rev. 12:7, cp Dan. 12:1). Since they are both around at the same time, they CANNOT BE the same person.

You've said that God and the Lamb share the same throne in Revelation 5, but that they are also the same thing. Why should there be a contradiction with Michael and Jesus being the same thing because they are both there when God and the Lamb are both around at the same time, but you say they are the same thing?

Michael and Jesus are both there, yes, but where do their discussions overlap or contradict as multiple voices in Revelation?

On the other hand, "THE Angel of the LORD," IS the LORD. A THEOPHANY. A physical manifestation of God in the Second Person of the Trinity PRIOR to His incarnation. THE Angel of the LORD is "One-of-a-Kind," whereas Michael is "One of Many" (Dan. 10:13). Note that when speaking, "THE Angel of the LORD" seldom passes on a message from GOD (The Father), but most of the time speaks as YAHWEH Himself.

God is not an angel. God does not in any way or in any "form" exist as an angel. His sovereignty is beyond such a thing.

Just as well, God himself has never been manifested. For God to manifest he himself and appear to people would contradict scripture, which states that no one has seen God (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18; 1 John 4:12). God was never seen by human beings nor can God be seen by human beings at all.

If God is the Angel of the LORD, why is "the angel of the LORD" speaking with God in Zechariah 1:12-13?

THE Angel appears to MOSES Exo. 3:2-16

And the angel of the LORD appeared # unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush [was] not consumed. And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.

.....

Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this [is] my name for ever, and this [is] my memorial unto all generations. Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God # of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared # unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and [seen] that which is done to you in Egypt.

The angel appeared to Moses, not God. God used the angel, a distinct, separate being, to appear to Moses:

Acts 7:35

35"This is the same Moses whom they had rejected with the words, 'Who made you ruler and judge?' He was sent to be their ruler and deliverer by God himself, through the angel who appeared to him in the bush.

It was the way God spoke to and appeared to Moses.

The scriptures are not unfamiliar with this. God repeatedly sends angels to speak in behalf of him and send messages (e.g. "This is what the LORD Almighty says" in Zechariah 1:14; "declares the LORD" in Genesis 22:15-16) and to kill and destroy (2 Kings 19:35; Isaiah 37:36; 1 Chronicles 21:15).

God used a real angel in this case as well. God uses humans as prophets. God uses angels as messengers. God himself did not need to, essentially, change or incarnate himself into a completely subordinate being.

THE Angel appears to ABRAHAM Gen. 22:10-18

And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here [am] I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me. And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind [him] a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said [to] this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

Here the pre-incarnate Son of God, as "THE Angel of the LORD" is telling Abraham that He knows Abraham fears GOD (The Father) because Abraham has not withheld Isaac "FROM ME" (YAHWEH The SON). This implies the command to sacrifice Isaac in Gen. 22:1 came from GOD THE SON.

And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son]: That in blessing I will bless thee , and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Here the pre-incarnate Christ continues, but now quotes GOD the Father ("saith the LORD"). Abraham is blessed by GOD The Father for obeying "My voice" (GOD The Son, Who is The WORD of God).

The angel is speaking in God's name. He is speaking in behalf of God. It is fitting that the angel be addressed as though he were God and speak God's words as though he were God. The angel is a messenger with this job to do. There is no confusion or contradiction over the messenger and the composer of the message.

He is referred to as The "ANGEL" of the LORD because He appeared in the likeness of an angel, but His speech reveals that it is YAHWEH Himself and not a created being. This is why the people in the OT who saw "THE Angel of the LORD" say that they SAW YAHWEH. (Thanks for providing the texts in your post - it saves me the trouble of doing so here).

God never appeared in the likeness of an angel.

If anything, "the angel of the LORD" appeared in the likeness of God, but even that's not certain.

When people spoke to the angel in those cases, they did not think that they were speaking with an angel and then realized that they were actually speaking with God.

Rather, they thought that they were speaking with God and then realized that they were actually speaking with the angel of the LORD.

God is not actually an angel. "The angel of the LORD" was simply a real angel and was always used in such cases as those. Angels are instrumental and flexible in their use.

In none of those cases did the individuals see God.

When Jacob wrestled with the mysterious man and afterward said "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved," did he really see God? (Genesis 32:28-30)

He actually did not. He did not see God at all. He wrestled with an angel that was doing so in behalf of God, and scripture states that this was the case:

Hosea 12:3-5

3 In the womb he grasped his brother's heel;
as a man he struggled with God.

4 He struggled with the angel and overcame him;
he wept and begged for his favor.
He found him at Bethel
and talked with him there-

5 the LORD God Almighty,
the LORD is his name of renown!

In Judges 6:11-23, Gideon speaks with "the angel of the LORD" and throughout the conversation, it switches off to "the LORD said" or "the LORD answered."

In verse 22, Gideon finally realizes that he was not speaking with and seeing God himself, but with "the angel of the LORD" where it states "Gideon realized that it was the angel of the LORD, he exclaimed, "Ah, Sovereign LORD! I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face!" In response, God says that he does not need to worry because he won't die. Why won't he die? Gideon won't die because he did not actually see God. He had seen the angel all along, not God:

Judges 6:11-23

11 The angel of the LORD came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. 12 When the angel of the LORD appeared to Gideon, he said, "The LORD is with you, mighty warrior."

13 "But sir," Gideon replied, "if the LORD is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonders that our fathers told us about when they said, 'Did not the LORD bring us up out of Egypt?' But now the LORD has abandoned us and put us into the hand of Midian."

14 The LORD turned to him and said, "Go in the strength you have and save Israel out of Midian's hand. Am I not sending you?"

15 "But Lord , " Gideon asked, "how can I save Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family."

16 The LORD answered, "I will be with you, and you will strike down all the Midianites together."

17 Gideon replied, "If now I have found favor in your eyes, give me a sign that it is really you talking to me. 18 Please do not go away until I come back and bring my offering and set it before you."
And the LORD said, "I will wait until you return."

19 Gideon went in, prepared a young goat, and from an ephah [b] of flour he made bread without yeast. Putting the meat in a basket and its broth in a pot, he brought them out and offered them to him under the oak.

20 The angel of God said to him, "Take the meat and the unleavened bread, place them on this rock, and pour out the broth." And Gideon did so. 21 With the tip of the staff that was in his hand, the angel of the LORD touched the meat and the unleavened bread. Fire flared from the rock, consuming the meat and the bread. And the angel of the LORD disappeared. 22 When Gideon realized that it was the angel of the LORD, he exclaimed, "Ah, Sovereign LORD! I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face!"

23 But the LORD said to him, "Peace! Do not be afraid. You are not going to die."

In Judges 13:15-23, "the angel of the LORD" speaks with Manoah and his wife.

Afterward, Monoah thinks that he saw God:
"We are doomed to die!" he said to his wife. "We have seen God!" (Judges 13:22)

Did he really see God? No, and his wife reasons with him over that (Judges 13:23).

Beforehand, Manoah's wife thought that she was speaking with "a man of God," with a prophet (Judges 13:2-9).

Again, as the narrative details, it was simply "the angel of the LORD" that appeared and was speaking with Monoah and his wife in behalf of God, not God himself.

Consider when God "appeared" to Hagar (Genesis 16:7-14).

Even though she says that the one she spoke to is "the God who sees me," for she said, "I have now seen the One who sees me" (Genesis 16:13), she did not actually see God. All throughout the discussion, she was speaking with "the angel of the LORD."

God doesn't "appear as" anything. "The angel of the LORD" appeared as a spokesman for God. God himself does not incarnate himself into creation. Absolutely no tangible image on Earth can reflect or characterize what God looks like or "appeared as." As God warns in Deuteronomy 4:15-19, that would be idolatry.

No appearance or image of anything is ever actually comparable to God (Isaiah 40:18). God's image, whether or not it exists (physically) is beyond comprehension and was never seen by human beings.

That THE SON OF GOD appeared in the OT as THE ANGEL OF THE LORD was taught by the Early Church Fathers:

From the writings of Moses also this will be manifest; for thus it is written in them, "And the Angel of God spake to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers; go down into Egypt, and bring forth My people." And if you wish to learn what follows, you can do so from the same writings; for it is impossible to relate the whole here. But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race, He endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, "And the angel of God spake to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," yet maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe. Whence also the Spirit of prophecy rebukes them, and says, "Israel doth not know Me, my people have not understood Me."

Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63

As a discussion of theophany, this was definitely how it was done.

Yes, they DO FIT, yet you still don't see the big picture. Jesus is God as much as the Father and the Spirit are God. Jesus IS the CREATOR and is therefore God. He appeared in the OT as THE Angel of the LORD and was recognized AS GOD by those who saw Him. When He was INCARNATED, He was STILL GOD, having taking upon Himself human form. After His resurrection, His glory was restored (Phil. 2:5-11 NASB) and He CONTINUES to BE GOD.

You are so close to the truth, and yet you resist it - apparently because the Bible does not spell it out like a doctrinal statement. If that's what you are looking for, you are out of luck.

When pre-incarnate Jesus was incarnated and made to become born as a human being through the virgin birth, he wasn't "STILL GOD." As a man, he was lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:6-9). If he were still God, he wouldn't have died. He was no longer "god" or "divine" in whatever sense he was as the pre-incarnate Jesus. He was no longer immortal as a heavenly being, but mortal as a man.

To pull this together, the Father indeed was greater than he was (John 14:28), and God the Father was always greater than he was. God has always been greater than the Word/Jesus/Son. Truly, God Almighty is not comparable or equal to any one or any thing (Isaiah 40:25; Isaiah 46:5).

Sincerely,
evantisin

[apostoli]

Guys,

We here in the Oz are having a freak, continuing, heat wave and I've a tendency to heat sickness (I get physically ill),. Hence, my tolerance levels are between zero and none.

IncRus, I'll reply to your post when things cool off here.

All, I need to make a point to you = Until the arise of unitarianism during the advent of protestantism everyone, including Calvin recognised Jesus as the Angel of the YHWH and acknowledged him to bear the name Michael. It wasn't until Michael Severus considered himself to be (at least according to Calvin) Michael himself that the teaching became supressed.

Back in early 2005 I was asked to provide evidence for my statement. I'll repeat it in part...

Here is a sample of Calvin's writings...

COMMENTARIES On THE FOUR LAST BOOKS OF MOSES,VOLUME FIRST, BY JOHN CALVIN
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment2/hal1.htm

2. And the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him. It was necessary that he should assume a visible form, that he might be seen by Moses, not as he was in his essence, but as the infirmity of the human mind could comprehend him. For thus we must believe that God, as often as he appeared of old to the holy patriarchs, descended in some way from his majesty, that he might reveal himself as far as was useful, and as far as their comprehension would admit. The same, too, is to be said of angels, who, although they are invisible spirits, yet when it seemed good to the Almighty, assumed some form in which they might be seen. But let us inquire who this Angel was? since soon afterwards he not only calls himself Jehovah, but claims the glory of the eternal and only God. Now, although this is an allowable manner of speaking, because the angels transfer to themselves the person and titles of God, when they are performing the commissions entrusted to them by him; and although it is plain from many passages, and f37 especially from the first chapter of Zechariah, that there is one head and chief of the angels who commands the others, the ancient teachers of the Church have rightly understood that the Eternal Son of God is so called in respect to his office as Mediator, which he figuratively bore from the beginning, although he really took it upon him only at his Incarnation. And Paul sufficiently expounds this mystery to us, when he plainly asserts that Christ was the leader of his people in the Desert. (<461004>1 Corinthians 10:4.) Therefore, although at that time, properly speaking, he was not yet the messenger of his Father, still his predestinated appointment to the office even then had this effect, that he manifested himself to the patriarchs, and was known in this character. Nor, indeed, had the saints ever any communication with God except through the promised Mediator. It is not then to be wondered at, if the Eternal Word of God, of one Godhead and essence with the Father, assumed the name of “the Angel” on the ground of his future mission.


CALVIN’S PREFACE TO MALACHI
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment2/malc.htm

He afterwards adds, And presently shall f43 come to his temple the Lord, whom ye seek. After having said that he would open a way for his favor, he now adds, come shall the Lord. He introduces here, not Jehovah, but the Lord, ˆwda, Adun; and hence he speaks distinctly of Christ, who is afterwards called the Angel or Messenger of the covenant. But the word ˆwda, Adun, commonly used for a Mediator, as in Psalm 110, and also in <270917>Daniel 9:17; where it is expressly said, “Hear, O Jehovah, for the sake of the Lord,” ynwda ˆ[ml, lamon Aduni; the word is the same as here, come then shall the Lord. The reason for this mode of speaking was, because Christ was shown to them under the type which re presented him. As then the kingdom of David was a representation of the kingdom of Christ our Lord, it is no wonder that the Prophets designate him by this title, especially those who were the nearest to the time of Christ’s manifestation. But he is promised by another title, the angel or messenger of the covenant; but it means not the same here as in the first clause. He called John the Baptist at the beginning of this verse a messenger, the messenger of Jehovah; and now he calls Christ a messenger, but he is the messenger of the covenant; f44 for it was necessary that the covenant should be confirmed by him. The title of John the Baptist was then inferior to that of Christ; for though he was God manifested in the flesh, yet this did not prevent him from being God’s minister and interpreter in order to confirm his covenant; and we know that the office of Christ consists in confirming and sealing to us the covenant of God, not only by his doctrine, but also by his blood and the sacrifice of his cross.


John Calvin, Commentary on Daniel 10:21
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calc...hael#highlight
He next adds, There is no one who supports me in this duty except Michael, whom he calls prince of the elect people It is surprising why the angel and Michael alone fought for the safety of the people. It is written, Angels pitch their camp in a circuit around those who fear God, (Psalm 34:7,) and then but one Church existed in the world. Why, then, did not God commit this charge to more angels than one? Why did he not send forth mighty forces? We acknowledge that God does not confine himself to any fixed rule; he can help us as well by many forces as by a single angel or by more. And he does not make use of angels as if he could not do without them. This is the reason of that variety which we observe: he is first content with one angel, and then joins more with him. He will give to one man a great army, as we read of Elisha, and as other passages in Scripture afford us examples. (2 Kings 6:17.) the servant of Elisha saw the air full of angels. Thus also Christ said, Can I not ask my Father, and he will send me, not one angel only, but a legion? (Matthew 26:53.) Again, the Spirit of God assigns many angels to each of the faithful. (Psalm 91:11.) Now, therefore, we understand why God sends more angels, not always with the same purpose or intention, to inform us that he is sufficient to afford us protection, even if no other help should be supplied. He provides for our infirmities by bringing us help by means of his angels, who act like hands to execute his commands. But I have previously remarked this is not an invariable practice, and we ought not to bind him by any fixed conditions to supply our wants always in the same manner. God seemed, at least for a time, to leave his people without help, and afterwards two angels were sent to contend for them; first, a single one was sent to Daniel, and then Michael, whom some think to be Christ. I do not object to this view, for he calls him a prince of the Church, and this title seems by no means to belong to any angels, but to be peculiar to Christ. On the whole, the angel signifies that God did not put forth his full strength in contending for his Church, but shews himself to be a servant to promote its safety till the time of deliverance should arise. He afterwards adds — for the next verse may be treated shortly, and ought to be connected with this in one context.


NB: Calvin accused Michael Servetus as thinking he was the Archangel Michael, and so seems to have modified his opinion on who/what the archangel is/was.

HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH, CHAPTER XVI.SERVETUS
http://www.renealegre.net/S/Schaff/History/8_ch16.htm

"Calvin felt himself called by Divine Providence to purify the Church of all corruptions, and to bring her back to the Christianity of Christ, and regarded Servetus as a servant of Antichrist, who aimed at the destruction of Christianity. Servetus was equally confident of a divine call, and even identified himself with the archangel Michael in his apocalyptic fight against the dragon of Rome and the Simon Magus of Geneva."


John Calvin, Commentary on Daniel 10:21
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calc...hael#highlight

By Michael many agree in understanding Christ as the head of the Church. But if it seems better to understand Michael as the archangel, this sense will prove suitable, for under Christ as the head, angels are the guardians of the Church. Whichever be the true meaning, God was the preserver of his Church by the hand of his only-begotten Son, and because the angels are under the government of Christ, he might entrust this duty to Michael. That foul hypocrite, Servetus, has dared to appropriate this passage to himself; for he has inscribed it as a frontispiece on his horrible comments, because he was called Michael! We observe what diabolic fury has seized him, as he dared to claim as his own what is here said of the singular aid afforded by Christ; to his Church. He was a man of the most impure feelings, as we have already sufficiently made known. But this was a proof of his impudence and sacrilegious madness — to adorn himself with this epithet of Christ without, blushing, and. to elevate himself into Christ’s place, by boasting himself to be Michael, the guardian of the Church, and the mighty prince of the people! This fact is well known, for I have the book at hand should any one distrust my word.

Disclaimer:

John Calvin was a voluminous writer, and I must admit, I have not read everything he ever wrote. All of the above I've gleaned through independent study of his writings. The quotes given were found serenditiously, they didn't come from some "authoritive book". My only authority of what Calvin thought, is Calvin himself.

If "the Word of God" had a name and id
entity as an archangel, it would most likely have been Michael ("Who is like God?").

The question "Who is like God?" is rhetorical. The obvious answer is the one that bears the name Michael. Just like the name Immanuel = "God with us".

Peace

[xcav8tor]

Hi apostoli,

Don't you have air-conditioning, or a pool you can retreat to? If it gets too hot, try a cool shower. That should refresh you.

All, I need to make a point to you = Until the arise of unitarianism during the advent of protestantism everyone, including Calvin recognised Jesus as the Angel of the YHWH and acknowledged him to bear the name Michael. It wasn't until Michael Severus considered himself to be (at least according to Calvin) Michael himself that the teaching became supressed.

Well, it may well be that that was the majority opinion, but it doesn't make it right. Calvin had a lot of good to say, but he was not infallible (just like Martin Luthor's valuable contribution did not validate his later anti-Semitism). I reject the idea of THE Angel of the LORD being Michael the Archangel on scriptural grounds alone.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[apostoli]

Hi xcav8tor,

Hi apostoli,

Don't you have air-conditioning, or a pool you can retreat to? If it gets too hot, try a cool shower. That should refresh you.



Well, it may well be that that was the majority opinion, but it doesn't make it right. Calvin had a lot of good to say, but he was not infallible (just like Martin Luthor's valuable contribution did not validate his later anti-Semitism). I reject the idea of THE Angel of the LORD being Michael the Archangel on scriptural grounds alone.

Regards,
xcav8tor

Yep, I do have air conditioning at home and at work, but unlike HK I haven't tunneled resourcves, so can't escape the heat permanently. I do have a physical condition that even ice baths, though relieving, can't fix ;-}.

It is very early morning here so though humid the heat is bearable.

I personally see no contradiction in a testimony that goes back (imu) to the earliest Christology testaments. As Novation says (late 3rd century) he is called angel because he is the messenger of his own Father (ie:he is the Word of God. Imu, angel primarily means messenger).

Peace

[spitndirt]

Hi spitndirt,

Hello xcav8tor

Can you show me where I said that the word "firstborn" can be translated as "existing in eternity past"? I believe Col. 1:17 NASB clearly shows that Jesus had to exist in eternity past (in order to be "before all things") as does John 1:1-3 NASB (WAS, Greek "hen," = continued to be) and John 8:58 NASB ("I AM," not "I was"), but I would never think to use "firstborn" in Col. 1:15 NASB to show this.

Cool....you wish to have it both ways. Duly noted.

John 1:1-3. Note that "was = became" and that "Logos" was (became) in the beginning *with God* and *God*. This is not speaking of *Son of God* but the seed of him. Jesus = Logos+flesh. Flesh originates in the dust of the earth and is where man's personal identity is seated....which is why Jesus was, in the beginning, called "...the seed of the woman...", or the One to come.

As for the thought "was = became" consider that all things to do with creation *became* at a point in time. Even God's existence relative to all things. IOW, infinite God established an interface with finite creation. This interface = a realm of mediation between two incompatibles (intangible / tangible). This is the realm of *Christ*, i.e, Logos in the beginning....Jesus in the fullness of time. By all this it is clearly understood that Jesus is not the creator...his God is. His God created "by Logos" - or, the very nature of the One to come in the fullness of time.

Consequently, apart from creation there is found no place for a mediator. The mediator is a husband to the recipient of mediation (bride). True God is Father of the husband.

John 8:58. Bear in mind that it is God speaking to us by His son (Heb. 1). Jesus spoke *nothing* on his own. Even so, the son is comprehended in the beginning (never prior). Consider.....just as you and I are comprehended in Adam in the beginning, so too Jesus is comprehended in God in the beginning. And because God is before Adam Jesus is before you and I (and all men, including Adam).

Not at all. In fact I celebrate Christmas every year - complete with Birthday Cake. I agree that Jesus was born with a fully human, mortal nature. (Heb. 2:14-18 NASB / Phil. 2:6-8 NASB)

This begs the question: Can *a person* exist being mortal and immortal simultaneously? Of course you will either say 1) "...yes....clearly Jesus died, but being God he really did not cuz he is immortal...," or, 2) " No....clearly Jesus died, but being God he is able to lay down immortality, die a mortal, and take up immortality once again...".

To both "1) and 2)" I would respond - impossible, since one is either mortal or immortal. That is, if one is immortal he is, by definition, beyond being at any time subject to death. Hence, the term *mortal* can never at any time be applied to an immortal. This is not to say, however, that a mortal cannot put on immortality by the power of immortal God.

I believe I acknowledged the validity of the definition of "first one born" when I said, "Firstborn PRIMARILY means PREEMINENT - regardless of birth order." I did not say it ONLY means preeminent, just that in Col. 1:15-18 NASB the context shows this was the intended meaning since as the Creator and Sustainer of all things, Jesus would be indisputably preeminent over His creation.

Yes...I believe I acknowledged your acknowledgment. Even so, you are attempting to have it both ways. This is where trinitarians drift off into incoherence. Now, by incoherence I mean relative to reality. Truly, there is a form of logic to the trinitarian notion... though the form is wholly self-contained within a reality that it contradicts.

Neither did I argue that "firstborn" and "begotten" prove that the Father, Son and Spirit co-exist eternally.

Yes....you've established this point. We are in agreement here.

I DID say that these terms in reference to Christ show that Jesus is UNIQUELY THE SON OF GOD, and that He therefore equally shares the nature of The Father's Deity - just as we receive a human nature from our earthly fathers (by virtue of being begotten of them). (John 5:18 NASB / Mat. 26:63-65 NASB

In regards to this statement we agree again. Where we are in disagreement, however, is how we are comprehending it.

I would assert that Jesus was/is the only one of his kind being God's *only begotten* son. That is, he was born of woman (Mary~from Eve~from Adam) via male seed - i.e., the seed of God's Word (Logos). Again...in the same way you and I were/are comprehended in the loins of Adam, Jesus was/is comprehended in the loins of God. IOW, Jesus, being born in the fullness of time, was/is "...a man in whom the fullness of God dwelt/dwells bodily..." - Logos being that very fullness.

Conclusion (mine): Jesus was/is fully man....God was/is fully God *in him*. The Son in the Father and the Father in the Son. These are *One Christ*.

peace

[spitndirt]

Hello Viv, you said....

Therefore both arguments offered here are correct - Jesus was God (his soul was united with God, being united with the spiritually Only Begotten) and Jesus was not God (his flesh and blood body not being God - merely acting as a temple for God), and can each be argued with scripture.

I understand what you are getting at...how both arguments can be found accurate if only they are presented in a comprehensible way. My hope would be that we are all seeking this way. However, it is clear that some here are seeking something else entirely.

I can't speak for others but I can tell you why I argue against the trinitarian notion as it is presented by orthodox trinitarians themselves. Their assertion contains this: that Jesus has always existed as a second person of one eternally existing triune God. This is simply false. Now this isn't the primary point of my contention. They add to this notion a threat of divine condemnation as if to say "...if you do not assent to the orthodox view God will cast you into hell for all eternity..." (orthodoxy's hell being another orthodox fabrication). Viv, this is how men are taken captive. Of those who enlist this tactic it is written "...indeed, wine betrays him; he is arrogant and never at rest. Because he is greedy as the grave and like death is never satisfied, he gathers to himself all the nations and takes captive all the peoples..." Hab. 2:5.

Now, I have (and am) meditated(ing) out my views on this fascinating subject and yet have never been (or ever will be) compelled to speak for God saying "...believe what I say or God will hold you eternally accountable for it...". So....it has been (and will continue to be) my aim to find the right words to illustrate how it is that orthodox trinitarians have crafted a notion by which they continually hurl accusations / condemnations (who is the great accuser?) in the name of the One sent not to condemn but to save.

So....should I really rest or compromise until orthodoxy gets back to the true Gospel of Christ through whom Paul concluded this: "...all that counts is faith expressing itself in love..."? If I am to be converted to orthodox trinitarinism I will have to be shown how hurling accusations / condemnations equates to obeying the royal command.

This aside....I have from time to time given thought to the feminine aspect of things and of that which is considered "God". This aspect is quite undeniable seeing that it is written "...in the image of God (Elohim) He created him; male and female He created them...". According to your words I can find agreement. I too see an alternating pattern from male to female... then to male then to female. In my mind this represents an establishment in the spiritual realm that is then translated to the physical realm (Adam and Eve). Seeing this I am driven to consider the beginning texts according to this pattern. Here is what I am seeing at present: My starting premise is always that God apart from and prior to creation is simply one undivided and seamless being....neither male nor female. God becomes these things relative to creation...hence, the placement of these things *in* the beginning. Sort of like light piercing trough a prism by which all of it's invisible qualities become revealed. That said, true God = male. What identifies God as male is that He appears bearing seed - His Word. Therefore, the seed of God is male as well (representing a son). I deduce from this that what remains signifies that which is feminine. I ask, where did God direct His Word (plant His seed). Was it not towards (in) those first elements that are depicted in Gen. 1:2? Yes....in the first place "...darkness covering the face of the deep...". Consider the construct of the first day where we see that darkness is a container for light (of God). Therefore, darkness represents a womb and light, the fruit of that womb. By God's Word (seed) this womb was impregnated with light. In the second place "...the spirit hovering over the face of the waters...". Consider that both male and female are imbued with the one spirit...and that from the waters, divided by the one spirit, both are brought forth. Therefore, a feminine is signified since all men (male an female) are given spirit in the womb and come into the world by the breaking of water... and then breathe the same air.

Now....I don't know the extent to which these things can be applied. But it seems to fit reality. Anyway, as always I appreciate your thoughts and your willingness to express them without malice...

peace to you