Is Jesus the Archangel Michael????? [Archive]

Cherith

November 29th 2004, 05:44 PM

Hello Crusader,

I would tread lightly here if I were you. There have been many orthodox Christians down through the ages (probably the most notable is the commentary on Daniel by Matthew Henry) who have believed that the arch/chief-angel/messenger "Michael" ("Who is like God?") is a reference to the pre-incarnate Son of God.

And we have good reason for referring to Christ as "The Messenger" for this is exactly the description we have of Him in Mal 3:1 when He "shall suddenly come to His Temple".

In Dan 10:21 "Michael" is called The Prince of Israel. In Dan 12:1-2 he is referred to as "The Great Prince" and his "coming" is connected with a resurrection of "many" (not "all", see Matt 27:51-54).

Finally, regarding Jude's mention of "Michael" we must go back and read the passage that he is referring to in the Old Covenant, viz. Zech 3:2 which says that it was The LORD Himself Who rebuked Satan. Jude says that "Michael...durst/dared not" to bring a "railing/slanderous accusation". The word there used for "durst/dared" means "to be bold" - an evident statement of the manner of God's rebuke of Satan in Zech 3:2. Whether the negative qualifier is in the Greek for "durst/dared" I have no knowledge, perhaps some Greek scholar could help us out on that one(?), but perhaps such a negative could apply to the fact that God does not "rail" or "slander" anyone, including the enemy. In fact the passage in Zech 3:2 doesn't even mention Moses, it mentions Joshua and then following on the heels of all of this is a Messianic prophecy about God's "BRANCH", or greater "Joshua" - viz. Jesus, our High Priest.

Dan 10:21 "But I will show thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your Prince."

Dan 12:1-2 "And at that time shall Michael stand up, The Great Prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. {2} And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Deu 34:5-9 "So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. {6} And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. {7} And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated. {8} And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended. {9} And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses."

Zec 3 "And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. {2} And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? {3} Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. {4} And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment. {5} And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD stood by. {6} And the angel of the LORD protested unto Joshua, saying, {7} Thus saith the LORD of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by. {8} Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth My Servant the BRANCH. {9} For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. {10} In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree."

Jude 1:9 "Yet Michael The Arch-Angel (Chief Messenger), when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."

Just some points to ponder.

Grace and Peace from our LORD, Jesus, The Christ.
--C

Krusader

November 29th 2004, 06:14 PM

Hello Crusader,

I would tread lightly here if I were you. There have been many orthodox Christians down through the ages (probably the most notable is the commentary on Daniel by Matthew Henry) who have believed that the arch/chief-angel/messenger "Michael" ("Who is like God?") is a reference to the pre-incarnate Son of God.

And we have good reason for referring to Christ as "The Messenger" for this is exactly the description we have of Him in Mal 3:1 when He "shall suddenly come to His Temple".

In Dan 10:21 "Michael" is called The Prince of Israel. In Dan 12:1-2 he is referred to as "The Great Prince" and his "coming" is connected with a resurrection of "many" (not "all", see Matt 27:51

Finally, regarding Jude's mention of "Michael" we must go back and read the passage that he is referring to in the Old Covenant, viz. Zech 3:2 which says that it was The LORD Himself Who rebuked Satan. Jude says that "Michael...durst/dared not" to bring a "railing/slanderous accusation". The word there used for "durst/dared" means "to be bold" - an evident statement of the manner of God's rebuke of Satan in Zech 3:2. Whether the negative qualifier is in the Greek for "durst/dared" I have no knowledge, perhaps some Greek scholar could help us out on that one(?), but perhaps such a negative could apply to the fact that God does not "rail" or "slander" anyone, including the enemy. In fact the passage in Zech 3:2 doesn't even mention Moses, it mentions Joshua and then following on the heels of all of this is a Messianic prophecy about God's "BRANCH", or greater "Joshua" - viz. Jesus, our High Priest.

Dan 10:21 "But I will show thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your Prince."

Dan 12:1-2 "And at that time shall Michael stand up, The Great Prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. {2} And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Deu 34:5-9 "So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. {6} And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. {7} And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated. {8} And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended. {9} And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses."

Zec 3 "And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. {2} And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? {3} Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. {4} And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment. {5} And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD stood by. {6} And the angel of the LORD protested unto Joshua, saying, {7} Thus saith the LORD of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by. {8} Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth My Servant the BRANCH. {9} For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. {10} In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree."

Jude 1:9 "Yet Michael The Arch-Angel (Chief Messenger), when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."

Just some points to ponder.

Grace and Peace from our LORD, Jesus, The Christ.
--C
Thanks for that posting. However, I'm aware that some in the Christian community have taught that Michael is a pseudonym for the Lord Jesus, however, they have been wrong.

For instance, John Calvin did teach that Michael was Jesus, but also admitted that this might be incorrect. Certainly, Calvin also taught Christ's deity.

The Roman Church has always made a distinction between Michael and Jesus, as have most Protestant scholars.

The point is that "one of the chief princes" cannot possibly apply to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

The Watchtower claims that Michael the Archangel was a created being and left behind his angelic nature to become Jesus. This is pure Arianism.

Christians who have seen a Michael/Jesus connection have never embraced Arianism. Also, I believe the SDA sect holds to this position, however they are also trinitarian.

Again, one single verse that relates Jesus to Michael!

InChristAlways

March 16th 2005, 03:22 PM

Hi Cherith. Many times we have to look a lot deeper into the spiritual sayings of Jesus and though Michael is depicted in Daniel as a Great Prince, in revelation it just says "Michael". But if we look later on in revelation, we also see one as like unto a son of man on a cloud gathering the firstfruits saints before the Wraths. Christ is depicted as a Prince of the kings of the earth in reve 1:5.
Is this also a reference back to Michael?reve 14:14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat [One] like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle.

Zec 3 "And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. {2} And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? {3} Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. {4} And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.

If one looks past the literal part of this passage in Jude, it could also be depicting Jesus speaking against the jewish rulers who sat on "Moses' Seat"[matt 23].

Jude 1:9 "Yet Michael The Arch-Angel (Chief Messenger), when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.

Revelation 16:10 Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom became full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues because of the pain.

Pythagoras

March 17th 2005, 04:01 AM

InChristAlways

March 17th 2005, 12:25 PM

Hi ,

I don't think we should be too hard on our JW friends. Maybe we should approach the subject with patience and calm.
With that in mind, the writer of Hebrews writing to the Jewish people says, “Jesus is so much better than the angels.” Hebrews 1:4, “Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.”

So I doubt very much if Jesus is a mere ArchAngel like Michael or what not. Infact we as Saints will one day judge Angels. There are many names used in the bible that have meaning according to the contexts of passages, Michael means one like God and since we become or now are like angels and will even judge angels, Christ is da main Judge and ruler over all.
God Bless,Hi Pytha. I am sure Michael is a "title" just as Christ is a "title" meaning "annointed".
I am just stating what is in the scritpture. According to the meaning of Micael, it is one who is like God and I am sure the saints are happy to have "Michael" with them battling the "dragon" in revelation LOL. This scene appears to be repeated in different symbolical ways throughout the book. Jesus is shown as a Son of God, a slain lamb, a Lion, one like a son of man and God Himself. The saints are preaching the Word of God and Testimony of Jesus.
It has a lot to do with the Spirit of God. zech 4:6 So he answered and said to me: "This the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: 'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' Says the LORD of hosts. [i]7 'Who [are] you, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel [you shall become] a plain! And he shall bring forth the capstone With shouts of "Grace, grace to it!" ' " Great book if one really delves into it thru the Spirit and I believe solves a lot of the mysteries in the Bible as revelation is the Mystery of God being finished [chapt 10] God bless.

revelaton 12:7 And there came to be war in heaven: Michael and his messengers [going forth] to war with the dragon; and, the dragon, fought, and his messengers;10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying--Now, hath come the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ; because the accuser of our brethren hath been cast out, who was accusing them before our God day and night; 11 And, they, overcame him by reason of the blood of the Lamb, and by reason of their witnessing word, and they loved not their life, even unto death.

Daniel 12:1 And, at that time, will Michael, the great ruler who standeth for the sons of thy people, make a stand, and there will be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, up to that time,--and, at that time, shall thy people, be delivered, every one found written in the hook; 2 and, many of the sleepers in the dusty ground, shall awake,--these, [shall be] to age-abiding life, but, those, to reproach, and age-abiding abhorrence;

shall Michael 04317 Miyka'el {me-kaw-ale'}
from 04310 and (the prefix derivative from) 03588 and 0410;; n pr m AV - Michael 13; 13 Michael = "who is like God"

Krusader

March 17th 2005, 02:49 PM

Hi Pytha. I am sure Michael is a "title" just as Christ is a "title" meaning "annointed".
I am just stating what is in the scritpture. According to the meaning of Micael, it is one who is like God and I am sure the saints are happy to have "Michael" with them battling the "dragon" in revelation LOL. This scene appears to be repeated in different symbolical ways throughout the book. Jesus is shown as a Son of God, a slain lamb, a Lion, one like a son of man and God Himself. The saints are preaching the Word of God and Testimony of Jesus.
It has a lot to do with the Spirit of God. Great book if one really delves into it thru the Spirit and I believe solves a lot of the mysteries in the Bible as revelation is the Mystery of God being finished [chapt 10] God bless.

revelaton 12:7 And there came to be war in heaven: Michael and his messengers [going forth] to war with the dragon; and, the dragon, fought, and his messengers;10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying--Now, hath come the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ; because the accuser of our brethren hath been cast out, who was accusing them before our God day and night; 11 And, they, overcame him by reason of the blood of the Lamb, and by reason of their witnessing word, and they loved not their life, even unto death.

Daniel 12:1 And, at that time, will Michael, the great ruler who standeth for the sons of thy people, make a stand, and there will be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, up to that time,--and, at that time, shall thy people, be delivered, every one found written in the hook; 2 and, many of the sleepers in the dusty ground, shall awake,--these, [shall be] to age-abiding life, but, those, to reproach, and age-abiding abhorrence;

shall Michael 04317 Miyka'el {me-kaw-ale'}
from 04310 and (the prefix derivative from) 03588 and 0410;; n pr m AV - Michael 13; 13 Michael = "who is like God"

"But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia." Daniel 10:3

If Jesus is "one of the chief princes," who are His peers?

also, the Book of Revelation makes clear distinctions between Michael and Jesus Christ. It does not end by saying, "even so, Come Lord Michael."

InChristAlways

March 17th 2005, 03:40 PM

"But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia." Daniel 10:3

If Jesus is "one of the chief princes," who are His peers?

also, the Book of Revelation makes clear distinctions between Michael and Jesus Christ. It does not end by saying, "even so, Come Lord Michael."Hi Crusader. When when you figure out who the "Michael" is in revelation, let me know ok? God bless.

revelaton 12:7 And there came to be war in heaven: Michael and his messengers [going forth] to war with the dragon; and, the dragon, fought, and his messengers;10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying--Now, hath come the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ; because the accuser of our brethren hath been cast out, who was accusing them before our God day and night; 11 And, they, overcame him by reason of the blood of the Lamb, and by reason of their witnessing word, and they loved not their life, even unto death.

Daniel 12:1 And, at that time, will Michael, the great ruler who standeth for the sons of thy people, make a stand, and there will be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, up to that time,--and, at that time, shall thy people, be delivered, every one found written in the hook; 2 and, many of the sleepers in the dusty ground, shall awake,--these, [shall be] to age-abiding life, but, those, to reproach, and age-abiding abhorrence;

Krusader

March 17th 2005, 04:26 PM

Hi Crusader. When when you figure out who the "Michael" is in revelation, let me know ok? God bless.

revelaton 12:7 And there came to be war in heaven: Michael and his messengers [going forth] to war with the dragon; and, the dragon, fought, and his messengers;10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying--Now, hath come the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ; because the accuser of our brethren hath been cast out, who was accusing them before our God day and night; 11 And, they, overcame him by reason of the blood of the Lamb, and by reason of their witnessing word, and they loved not their life, even unto death.

Daniel 12:1 And, at that time, will Michael, the great ruler who standeth for the sons of thy people, make a stand, and there will be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, up to that time,--and, at that time, shall thy people, be delivered, every one found written in the hook; 2 and, many of the sleepers in the dusty ground, shall awake,--these, [shall be] to age-abiding life, but, those, to reproach, and age-abiding abhorrence;

The vss. you post do not prove that Jesus Christ is an Archangel. We worship Christ, but do not worship angels, which are created beings. We will also judge the angels - will you, then judge Christ (since you believe he is an angel?).

InChristAlways

March 17th 2005, 04:32 PM

Hi Crusader. When when you figure out who the "Michael" is in revelation, let me know ok? God bless.

The vss. you post do not prove that Jesus Christ is an Archangel. We worship Christ, but do not worship angels, which are created beings. We will also judge the angels - will you, then judge Christ (since you believe he is an angel?).Hi Crusader. I don't worship Michael, I worship the Father and Creator through the Name Jesus the Christ.
All I asked was for you to tell me who Michael is representing in revelation. Whoever the "messengers" are with him, they are overcoming the "dragon" and his "messengers" by reason of the blood of the Lamb and even unto death. Kind of goes along chapt 11 and the "2 witnesses"["Word of God/Testimony of Jesus]? in some ways.
Lots of OT symbology in revelation but for those who want to study on it more, I do have studies on it at the site in my signature, as I am trying to harmonize it and accurately translate. I could use some good Greek experts if there are any here.
What a fascinating Book!!!! God bless.

revelaton 12:7 And there came to be war in heaven: Michael and his messengers [going forth] to war with the dragon; and, the dragon, fought, and his messengers;10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying--Now, hath come the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ; because the accuser of our brethren hath been cast out, who was accusing them before our God day and night; 11 And, they, overcame him by reason of the blood of the Lamb, and by reason of their witnessing word, and they loved not their life, even unto death.

Daniel 12:1 And, at that time, will Michael, the great ruler who standeth for the sons of thy people, make a stand, and there will be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, up to that time,--and, at that time, shall thy people, be delivered, every one found written in the hook; 2 and, many of the sleepers in the dusty ground, shall awake,--these, [shall be] to age-abiding life, but, those, to reproach, and age-abiding abhorrence;

Pythagoras

March 17th 2005, 05:15 PM

Hi Inchrist,

Hi Pytha. I am sure Michael is a "title" just as Christ is a "title" meaning "annointed".

In anycase, the bible makes it absolutely clear Michael is an Arch Angel, so unless Christ is an Angel/ArchAngel, he can't be Michael..

According to the meaning of Micael, it is one who is like God

Indeed, almost has the same undertones as man being created in God's image. What a beautiful title for this wonderful Angel. He must be very proud to wear it.

and I am sure the saints are happy to have "Michael" with them battling the "dragon" in revelation LOL.

Ofcourse. Please note that Michael is the protector of Israel, and in this sense he's Israel's Chief Prince. Did you know the various nations have angels over them, powerful Demonic 'princes' ? Read Daniel.

best,

InChristAlways

March 17th 2005, 05:53 PM

Hi Inchrist,
In anycase, the bible makes it absolutely clear Michael is an Arch Angel, so unless Christ is an Angel/ArchAngel, he can't be Michael..
Indeed, almost has the same undertones as man being created in God's image. What a beautiful title for this wonderful Angel. He must be very proud to wear it.
Ofcourse. Please note that Michael is the protector of Israel, and in this sense he's Israel's Chief Prince. Did you know the various nations have angels over them, powerful Demonic 'princes' ? Read Daniel.

best,Hi Pytha. That was what Paul was battling a lot when going to the pagan gentile nations. Greek literature is full of it. This was an intersting study of how tough it was on Paul to bring the message of Christ to them. God bless.

http://ourworld.cs.com/preteristabcs/id84.htm

The Thessalonian church was comprised primarily of Gentile converts from the pagan cults of Dionysus, Zeus, Asclepius, Aphrodite, Demeter, and perhaps most important, the cult of Cabirus. They were converts from a social and religious milieu in which gods and demons were understood to have control over virtually all aspects of life. “Threatened by powers and demons, by illnesses and unforeseen strokes of fate, one lived in suspense and fear and felt subject to overpowering forces against which one could not assert oneself.” 2 The Thessalonian converts may have thought that the gods and demons who inhabited the air were responsible for the persecution and death suffered in their church. In fear occasioned by the apparent victories of the forces of darkness over them, the Thessalonian church was concerned whether those who had died would be with the Lord at all, not simply at his parousia. Their own fate would thus also have been in doubt. It was with these specific concerns in mind that Paul wrote the 4,13-5,10 pericope, affirming that those whom God has elected are assuredly the Lord's, attested by their “meeting in the air” at the parousia to behold the victory of the conquering Christ over the forces of darkness.

ephesi 6:11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual [hosts] of wickedness in the heavenly [places.] 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one.

Pythagoras

March 18th 2005, 07:44 PM

From our NT:

"Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out."

Come Lord Jesus;the Saints await, swords drawn, patiently and calmly..

kofh2u

March 19th 2005, 01:13 AM

Hi Crusader. When when you figure out who the "Michael" is in revelation, let me know ok? God bless.

revelaton 12:7 And there came to be war in heaven: Michael and his messengers [going forth] to war with the dragon; and, the dragon, fought, and his messengers;10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying--Now, hath come the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ; because the accuser of our brethren hath been cast out, who was accusing them before our God day and night; 11 And, they, overcame him by reason of the blood of the Lamb, and by reason of their witnessing word, and they loved not their life, even unto death.

Daniel 12:1 And, at that time, will Michael, the great ruler who standeth for the sons of thy people, make a stand, and there will be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, up to that time,--and, at that time, shall thy people, be delivered, every one found written in the hook; 2 and, many of the sleepers in the dusty ground, shall awake,--these, [shall be] to age-abiding life, but, those, to reproach, and age-abiding abhorrence;

Rev. 12:7 And there came to be war, (debate of the doctrines in 324 AD) in heaven, ( the theological realm): MICHAEL, (good Conscience), and HIS ANGELS, (such as Constantine and the bishops in the council at Nicaea), fought against the dragon, (cultural Paganism, the satanic lust and devilish manipulation of female sexual license); and his messengers; (the Pagans) and his angels, (such as Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria in Egypt, who argued that Christ was a created being and therefore not divine).

kofh2u

March 19th 2005, 01:25 AM

PioneerSDA

March 20th 2005, 11:02 PM

Dear Crusader,

I hope you and your family are blessed. The Bible might teach that Michael is another name for Jesus but it will never prove He is created. Barryrob is a nice guy and everything and I hope God blesses him and his family but he trips me out on his definiton of the phrase "only born" He says it means first created. Where does "only" ever mean "first" and where does "born" ever mean "created" in the Bible? Let's look at some quotes from your posts that summarizes the theme of this thread and then I would like to share with you some scriptures and that's it. I won't even comment on them. I believe they are very interesting for you subject. But before you read on know that my sincere prayer for you is "that THE GOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST,THE FATHER may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowlege of Him." Ephesians 1:17

[Would any individual stranded on an island with only a Bible to read, come away believing that Jesus was the Archangel Michael?] quoted from Crusader post # 1

[Give me Scriptural proof of Michael being Jesus (one verse will do).] quoted from Crusader post # 6

[And, by the way, I'm still waiting for one verse from Scripture that explicitly teaches that Jesus is the Archangel Michael. You have not yet supplied on - and that is because there isn't one verse of Scripture which teaches that.
Don't you think that if Jesus was really the Archangel Michael that the Scriptures would state that clearly?] quoted from Crusader post # 10

[Christians who have seen a Michael/Jesus connection have never embraced Arianism. Also, I believe the SDA sect holds to this position, however they are also trinitarian. Again, one single verse that relates Jesus to Michael!] quoted from Crusader post # 12

“Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” John 5:28,29 K.J.V.

“And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Daniel 12:1,2 K.J.V.“For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:” 1st Thessalonians 4:15,16 K.J.V.

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.” 1st John 5:25 K.J.V.

Krusader

March 21st 2005, 02:27 PM

PioneerSDA

March 21st 2005, 05:40 PM

InChristAlways

March 21st 2005, 07:39 PM

Pioneer SDA Barryrob is a nice guy and everything and I hope God blesses him and his family but he trips me out on his definiton of the phrase "only born" He says it means first created. Where does "only" ever mean "first" and where does "born" ever mean "created" in the Bible? Let's look at some quotes from your posts that summarizes the theme of this thread and then I would like to share with you some scriptures and that's it. I won't even comment on them. I believe they are very interesting for you subject. But before you read on know that my sincere prayer for you is "that THE GOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST,THE FATHER may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowlege of Him." Ephesians 1:17
Hi Pioneer. God referred to Isaac as His only son, though Ishmael was born first. Adam was actually God's "first son" formed from dust. We are considered God's sons/messenges also, with Christ as the Chief Messenger. Why make it so complicated?

Luke 3:37 [the son] of Methuselah, [the son] of Enoch, [the son] of Jared, [the son] of Mahalalel, [the son] of Cainan, 38 [the son] of Enos, [the son] of Seth, [the son] of Adam, [the son] of God.

Genesis 22:1 Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 2 Then He said, "Take now your son, your only [son] Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

Krusader

March 21st 2005, 07:47 PM

PioneerSDA

March 21st 2005, 10:18 PM

Dear ChristInMe,
I hope you and your family are blessed. I would like to respond to some comments you made in your last post.

[God referred to Isaac as His only son, though Ishmael was born first.] quote from ChristInMe post #28

Are you searching for contraditions in the word of God? If God said Isaac is Abraham’s only son than I believe it. Maybe the Apostle Paul can help us on the subject as to why God would call Isaac Abarham’s only son.

“For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise.” Galations 4:22,23

“By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son], Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:” Hebrews 17,18Isaac was Abrahams only born Son of the promise.

Thank you for bringing up Abraham. You reminded me of something I wasn’t even thiking about saying. Abraham had many sons. Jews claim to be His sons. Muslims claim to be his sons. If we are true Christians are his true Sons accoriding to the Apostle Paul “And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Galatians 3:29 Even though Abraham has so many spiritual sons because as God promised he would be the father of many nations which is what Abraham’s name means and this is what God promised him when he changed his name, still Abraham only has two only born sons, two sons that he truly begat in his image after his likeness similar to how God has so many created sons but only one born Son who He begat from His own substance. Yes Abraham needed a wife to give birth to a son as all men do. It would be impossible for a human man to give birth to a son without a woman but let’s remember what Jesus said about His literal Father. “And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. “ Luke 8:27
[Adam was actually God's "first son" formed from dust.] quote from ChristInMe post #28

Surely Adam was God’s first son formed from the dust but God’s first and only born Son formed him from the dust. “God who made all things by Jesus Christ” Ephesians 3:9 “God…hath in these last days spoken to us by HIS SON… by whom also He made the worlds” Hebrews 1:1,2
God created man with the help of His equally Divine Son who He gave birth to in eternity.

[We are considered God's sons/messenges also, with Christ as the Chief Messenger.] quote from ChristInMe post #28

Yes we Christians are considered the sons and daughters of God but but what type of children are we?

“But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” Galatians 4:4-6

We are adopted into the family because God sends the spirit of His Son into our hearts but Jesus is a Son that we can never be. He is the only true literal biological Son of God. Jesus was God’s only born Son before God ever sent Him into the world to be born of a human before His name was ever Jesus. Moses was a very great prophet who God talked to personally as a man does to a friend but he was still only God’s servant because He was only a creature and not God’s true son.

“And Moses verily [was] faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.” Hebrews 3:5,6

Is this so surprising that God’s true Son is above us? Even the angels are above us but He is above them because He is their Creator. He is God’s only born.

“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.” Hebrews 1:5,6

Don’t you see that Jesus was God’s only born before He ever came down here to be born to take up the human nature and a human name?

[Why make it so complicated?] quote from ChristInMe post #28

“For God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16 K.JV.
The gospel is not so complicated. It is simple that God gave His Son for our salvation. Why does your false doctrine teach that God gave himself in a human disguise?

It wasn’t so complicated after I gave up my manmade traditions and believed that God is telling the truth when He says He has a Son-Male offspring younger than himself born from his divine substance who inherited his divine nature. God willing gave this being up, His true literal Son because He loved us that much. But if we believe the tradition that God sent himself disguised as his son instead of what the Bible says that God really had a Son with Him in heaven to sacrifice for us than that is very complicated.

“In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.”1st John 4:9

My sincere prayer for you is that one day you will live by the faith of Paul who said “…live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” Galatians 2:20

InChristAlways

March 22nd 2005, 01:29 PM

It wasn’t so complicated after I gave up my manmade traditions and believed that God is telling the truth when He says He has a Son-Male offspring younger than himself born from his divine substance who inherited his divine nature. God willing gave this being up, His true literal Son because He loved us that much. But if we believe the tradition that God sent himself disguised as his son instead of what the Bible says that God really had a Son with Him in heaven to sacrifice for us than that is very complicated.

“In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.”1st John 4:9
Hi. John said the Word was with God. What could the Word mean. A MESSAGE perhaps. Adam was His first Son, while Jesus the Christ was his first begotten. The testimony of Jesus was the Word of God, the Word of Life, the Word of Truth. The same Word that spoke to Moses in the burning bush and spoke through Moses to the Hebrews. The WORD/MESSAGE manifested in the flesh.

Revelation 1:2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw.

Krusader

March 22nd 2005, 05:52 PM

If Jesus is the Archangel Michael we might as well rip Hebrews chapter 1 out of the Bible!

PioneerSDA

March 29th 2005, 12:50 AM

Surely Hebrews 1 proves that Jesus is above all of the created angels because He is the only one born from God "as the express image of his person" Hebrews 1:3 before he ever came to earth to be born as a human but where does Hebrews 1 say that Jesus is above the archangels? There is only one archangel in the scriptures and it means cheif of the angels. Why can't you believe that Jesus is cheif of the created beings even though he is not a created being Himself? The word angel only means messenger/representative in the new testament and who is a better messenger or representative of the Father than His only born Son?

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds" Hebrews 1:1,2

Prophets were God's human messengers/angels and God's only born Son was above them because he made them so He must be their chief or their archmessenger /archangel.

No one represents God better than Jesus because He was born in eternity as "the express image of his person" Hebrews 1:3 and he is exactly like God in everyway. Micahel means he who is like God and is not the name of a creature.
No created being could ever be like God even though the devil tried Isaiah 14. God chose the name of His only born Son and his name means that He is equal to God. Philipians 2:6 ; John 5:18

P.S. I am not a Arian, Jehovah's Witness, Christidolphin, or Unitarian or whatever those false doctrines are called. They teach that Christ was born from nothing and is created. I believe the Bible that Christ was born from God in eternity and is His only born Son who is equal in divinity to Himself even He is the Messiah "whose goings forth [origin] is from of old from everlasting" Micah 5:2 and His Father has no origin or beginning.

Ephesians 1:17 is my prayer for you that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowlege of Him."

PioneerSDA

March 29th 2005, 01:19 PM

Hi. John said the Word was with God. What could the Word mean. A MESSAGE perhaps. Adam was His first Son, while Jesus the Christ was his first begotten. The testimony of Jesus was the Word of God, the Word of Life, the Word of Truth. The same Word that spoke to Moses in the burning bush and spoke through Moses to the Hebrews. The WORD/MESSAGE manifested in the flesh.

Revelation 1:2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. [/b]

May God and Jesus Christ His only born Son who he gave birth to in eternity bless you and your family.

"The same was in the beginning with God." John 1:2
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; " 1st John 1:1
"Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men." Proverbs 8:30,31

Mat 22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, [The Son] of David.

Mat 22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

Mat 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Mat 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

John called Christ the Word.
Solomon called Christ the Wisdom.
David called Christ His Adonai who Yahweh was talking meaning they had to be two seperate persons Psalms 110:1
Christ called Himself God's only born Son born from God who he sent into the world to be God's only born Son born from a human.

John didn't believe the Word that was with THE God was a message. He believed that He was a Divine being who created everything with God John 1:3. John said that "God sent His only begotten Son into the world" 1st John 4:9 meaning that God already gave birth to a Divine Son before he ever sent Him into the world to be born again this time as a human. Why don't you believe what Jesus said that God gave his only begotten Son to save the world John 3:16. Is it impossible for your God to give literally give birth to a Son equal in nature and divinity to himself that would help Him create all things? God's Son was with Him creating everything. "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? " Proverbs 30:4 " Hbr 1:1 God...hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son...by whom also he made the worlds;...the express image [exact copy or precise reproduction] of his person" Hebrews 1:1-3

Adam couldn't be God's first son, even the angels were before him, and none of the created angels could be God's first Son because His first and only born was begotten from his substance before all creation. Have you forgotten that the Messiah's origin or beginning "is from old from everlasting" Micah 5:2 meaning that he was born in eternity before all creation and is God's only true Son. The Word was not the message spoke to Moses. The Word was the only Divine/ uncreated angel/messenger of God who was in the burning bush speaking to Moses. God's only born Son.

My sincere prayer for you is that one day you may have a Christian faith like Paul's who said "... I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" Galations 2:20

Bill the Cat

December 29th 2005, 10:21 AM

Sorry to dig up old stuff...:digup:

buuuutt...

Finally, regarding Jude's mention of "Michael" we must go back and read the passage that he is referring to in the Old Covenant, viz. Zech 3:2

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible

I. Some have supposed that the reference is to the passage in Zechariah, Zec_3:1, following “And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan,” etc. The opinion that Jude refers to this passage was held by Lardner. But the objections to this are very obvious:
(1) There is no similarity between the two, except the expression, “the Lord rebuke thee.”
(2) the name Michael does not occur at all in the passage in Zechariah.
(3) there is no mention made of the “body of Moses” there, and no allusion to it whatever.
(4) there is no intimation that there was any such contention about his body. There is a mere mention that Satan resisted the angel of the Lord, as seen in the vision, but no intimation that the controversy had “any” reference to Moses in any way.
(5) the reason of the resistance which Satan offered to the angel in the vision as seen by Zechariah is stated. It was in regard to the consecration of Joshua to the office of high priest implying a return of prosperity to Jerusalem, and the restoration of the worship of God there in its purity; see Zec_3:2. To this Satan was of course opposed, and the vision represents him as resisting the angel in his purpose thus to set him apart to that office. These reasons seem to me to make it clear that Jude did not refer to the passage in Zechariah, nor is there any other place in the Old Testament to which it can be supposed he had reference.

II. Hug supposes that the reference here, as well as that in Jud_1:14, to the prophecy of Enoch, is derived from some apocryphal books existing in the time of Jude; and that though those books contained mere fables, the apostle appealed to them, not as conceding what was said to be true, but in order to refute and rebuke those against whom he wrote, out of books which they admitted to be of authority. Introduction Section 183. Arguments and confutations, he says, drawn from the sacred Scriptures, would have been of no avail in reasoning with them, for these they evaded 2Pe_3:16, and there were no surer means of influencing them than those writings which they themselves valued as the sources of their special views. According to this, the apostle did not mean to vouch for the truth of the story, but merely to make use of it in argument. The objection to this is, that the apostle does in fact seem to refer to the contest between Michael and the devil as true. He speaks of it in the same way in which he would have done if he had spoken of the death of Moses, or of his smiting the rock, or of his leading the children of Israel across the Red Sea, or of any other fact in history. If he regarded it as a mere fable, though it would have been honest and consistent with all proper views of inspiration for him to have said to those against whom he argued, that on their own principles such and such things were true, yet it would not be honest to speak of it as a fact which he admitted to be true. Besides, it should be remembered that he is not arguing with them, in which case it might be admissible reason in this way, but was making statements to others about them, and showing that they manifested a spirit entirely different from that which the angels evinced even when contending in a just cause against the prince of all evil.

III. It has been supposed that the apostle quotes an apocryphal book existing in his time, containing this account, and that he means to admit that the account is true. Origen mentions such a book, called “the Assumption of Moses,” (Αναληψις του Μωσεως Analēpsis tou Mōseōs,) as extant in his time, containing this very account of the contest between Michael and the devil about the body of Moses. That was a Jewish Greek book, and Origen supposed that this was the source of the account here. That book is now lost. There is still extant a book in Hebrew, called פטירת משׁה paTiyret Mosheh - “the Death of Moses,” which some have supposed to be the book referred to by Origen. “That” book contains many fabulous stories about the death of Moses, and is evidently the work of some Jew drawing wholly upon his imagination. An account of it may be seen in Michaelis, Introduction iv. p. 381ff. There is no reason to suppose that this is the same book referred to by Origen under the name of “the Assumption of Moses;” and there is a moral certainty that an inspired writer could not have quoted it as of authority. Further, there can be no reasonable doubt that such a book as Origen refers to, under the title of “the Assumption of Moses,” was extant in “his” time, but that does not prove by any means that it was extant in the time of Jude, or that he quoted it. There is, indeed, no positive proof that it was “not” extant in the time of Jude, but there is none that it was, and all the facts in the case will be met by the supposition that it was written afterward, and that the tradition on the subject here referred to by Jude was incorporated into it.

IV. The remaining supposition is, that Jude here refers to a prevalent “tradition” among the Jews, and that he has adopted it as containing an important truth, and one which bore on the subject under discussion. In support of this, it may be observed,
(a) that it is well known that there were many traditions of this nature among the Jews. See the notes at Mat_15:2.
(b) That though many of these traditions were puerile and false, yet there is no reason to doubt that some of them might have been founded in truth.
(c) That an inspired writer might select those which were true, for the illustration of his subject, with as much propriety as he might select what was written; since if what was thus handed down by tradition was true, it was as proper to use it as to use a fact made known in any other way.
(d) That in fact such traditions were adopted by the inspired writers when they would serve to illustrate a subject which they were discussing. Thus Paul refers to the tradition about Jannes and Jambres as true history. See the notes at 2Ti_3:8.
(e) If, therefore, what is here said was true, there was no impropriety in its being referred to by Jude as an illustration of his subject.

I am more inclined to agree with #2 or 3.

anewlife

December 29th 2005, 02:12 PM

ASV

Dan 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me: and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

So if Jesus is Michael or Michael is Jesus then is Jesus is one of the chief princes?

Is Jesus much better than the angels? Angels worship Angels?

Heb 1:4 having become by so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they.

Heb 1:5 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?

Heb 1:6 And when he again bringeth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

apostoli

January 8th 2006, 06:28 AM

Is Jesus much better than the angels? Angels worship Angels?Care needs to be taken in understanding "angel".

At Luke 7:24, James 2:25 etc the greek word "aggelon" is also used of men. The Scofield Reference Bible notes that regarding angel "In Rev 8:3-5 Christ is evidently meant." So, as you should see (unless you are a Oneness (the Son is the Father) believer) there is no scriptural issue with referring to Jesus as an angel, or even identifying him with Michael (as an OT id). From a Trinitarian viewpoint, to identify Jesus as "the angel of the Lord", is to undeline his position as the Logos made flesh.

Within the mindset of the Hebrew epistle, the word angel means "ministering agents from heaven" (Heb 1:14) or "messengers from heaven" as opposed to the prophets, disciples etc that some on TWeb propose (cp. Gal 1:8). At Heb 1:2, the Son is said to be the means by which God now speaks to us, which by definition makes him a "ministering angel" but A.Paul goes on to say of the Son, that God "has appointed [him] heir of all things" and makes the point that "through [the Son, God] made the world" (RSV). Heb 1:4 onwards contrasts the Son with the angels. In Jewish tradition angels were sent to guide men (eg: Raphael in Tobias) but A.Paul says (aka Heb 1:2-3), that the very maker of us became flesh, purged our sins and now sits at the right hand of the Father. In Jewish tradition the maker of us is God!

The point A.Paul makes in the Hebrew epistle, chapter 1 is angels are "ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Heb 1:14); this might be construed as describing the prophets, apostles etc, but Heb 2:5-8 shows this not to be the case. In contrast to the "messengers", Jesus is not the message or the messenger but the fact, he is, he whom God sent to deliver our Salvation! (Heb 1:1-3; 2:10).

Consider Heb 2:16-17 (RSV) "For surely it is not with Angels that he is concerned but with the descendents of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect" The KJV renders it:, "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham." We can interpret this as A.Paul contrasting the OT (more particularly the apocrapha) idea of angels who became as men in appearance, while Jesus, though identified as the Angel of the Lord in the OT (see below), truely became one of us, truely human in every sense. And in his humanity he remained "faithful to him that appointed him" as had Moses (Heb 3:1-3). The emphasis in these texts is that the maker of us, truely became man, and by the grace of God tasted death for every man and" it became him for whom are all things" (Heb 2:9-10). Here, some will jump to a parallel between God making Moses to Aaron, instead of God and to Pharoah a god (Ex 4:16; 7:1), and Jesus being made God to us. And that is a valid point! Heb 2:10 seems to give credence to this idea. Well it would, if one ignores Heb 1:2-3 (which would have Jesus as God in his pre-existence cp. Gen 1:1; Col 1:16-17; John 1:3). A.Paul in his letters makes it clear that whilst the Father, is the source of all things, the Son is the cause of our being and more particularly of our Salvation - aka He is not God merely by appointment but by action. This cannot be said of the angelic host, and this is A.Paul's major differentiator. We are not saved by the message (prefigurement in the law), nor the messenger (the angels, prophets etc) but by him that fulfilled the promise!

In Trinitarian Theology, there has been a consistent view that Jesus is pre-figured in the OT as the "angel of God", the "angel of the Lord", the "angel of the Covenent".

By example: Consider (KJV):
Gen 31:11-13 "the angel of God spoke unto me...I am the God of Bethel..."
Ex 3:2-4 "the angel of the Lord appeared unto [Moses] in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush...God called unto [Moses] out of the midst of the bush"

Novatian (210-280), in his Treatise Concerning the Trinity, goes to great lengths to prove Jesus is to be called God but he also shows that Jesus is called both God and angel in the OT. Chapters xviii thru xx. Recommended reading - click on link...
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-138.htm

As an aside: Narrowly reading scripture (not understanding the message), does cause a major problem for some. For example: A.Paul clearly says, referring to Jesus, at Heb 1:9, "God, your God has anointed you" (literally, "God, the God of you"). This is consistent with Eph 4:17 "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory". And Jesus words at John 20:17 "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God."

Does this make two Gods? No, as the body of Christ has many members and is but one body (1 Cor 12:12), so it is we think of the Godhead (cp: John 17:22;Col 1:19 & 2:9). But with the understanding that the Son is of the Father, and all other things are by the Son (1 Cor 8:6) and we being in Christ are joined in the Son with the Father (cp: John 17:21-23; Eph 3:19; Rom 8:11; Col 1:20).

The difficulty in JW theology is that they seperate the Son from the Father, whereas the scriptures reveal them as individuals in total and complete unity. Not as one person but two individualities working in union, and in unity with the person of the Holy Spirit. JW theology has the spirit as the active force of the Father that activates the Son and us. But is this what the scriptures indicate? Is the Spirit just an inanimate aspect of God in our lives; St.Augustine borders on this idea when he describes the Spirit as the binding love between the Father and the Son communicated and shared with us; but is the Spirit something more? That which proceeds from the Father through the Son, binding us in union and acting as our intercessor? We are encouraged by A.Paul, A.John and Luke to search the scriptures for the answers...

Topherlee

January 9th 2006, 06:23 PM

Oldmonk

January 25th 2006, 04:13 PM

Dear Crusader,
I sincerly hope that you and your family are blessed. If this topic is so important to you than it is also important to me and I'm glad that you replied so fast.

I do no disrespect to God's equally Divine Son who He gave birth to in eternity by calling Him an angel according to how it was used in the Old Testament.

mal'ak {mal-awk'}messenger, representative

This Hebrew word for messenger "mal'ak" was translated into angel many times in our Old Testament. Isn't Jesus the Messenger of the Covenant in Malachi 3:1? Than He can also be called the angel of the covenant.

I do no disrespect to God's equally Divine Son who He gave birth to in eternity by calling Him an angel according to how it was used in the New Testament.

aggelos {ang'-el-os}1) a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God

According to this definition of the word angel "one who is sent" Jesus called Himself an angel many times. Do you remember all those times the Son of God said that God sent Him?

My sincere prayer for you and your family is "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, The Father of glory may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowlege of Him." Ephesians 1:17

PIONEER: Shalom alachem to you and yours. Yes it is CLEAR that Jesus is refered to ,at times as an angel, mainly because any being that desends from heaven is thought of in those terms. CLEARLY the Angel of the LORD , which is NEVER refered to in the plural, and has , God's divine name IN him is none other than Jesus. If we look at the scriptures where the Angel of the LORD occures we see that the actions of that "angel" are in other places the actions of GOD. So also in Judges 13 when an Angel comes to deliver the message of the birth of Samson... In this case though they come to the conclusion that the angel was in fact God Himself and think that they may die... seeing that they saw the living God of Israel. Clearly also Jesus definately fits the discription of a messanger in his earthly work. With this all said however we MUST make the distinction between an angel and the SON of GOD. Jesus says that ONLY HE knows the Father in a complete fashion. Jesus demonstrates His divinity in His actions... ie. " believe in me for my works sake". Hebrews says that He has a better heritage. What mere angel could die for the sins of the world?? Where would be the atonement in that? When the bible seems to refer to the divine as an angel [ see Gen.48 where Jacob says " ...the ANGEL that redeemed me" as well as the three visitors that came to Abraham] it is speaking in metaphoric terms . As I said we tend , as I believe the Hebrews did, tend to use angel as a generic term for any being that resides and comes from heaven.

Oldmonk

January 25th 2006, 04:31 PM

1. I have a question maybe you can answer. Jesus is not named Jesus until he is to be born of the virgin Mary. This is biblical. What was his name prior to his human existence?

2. KJV Hebrews 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Apparently, he did have peers.

3. Name changes are not uncommon in the bible.

That is easy !!! He was called "I AM". Note the events of John 18. WHY did they fall backwards to the ground??? Then after you puzzel a while read this from Jewish sources;

I also found this quote from "Pentateuch and Haftorahs; Hebrew text , English Translation and commentary" Edited by Dr. J.H. Hertz Late Chief Rabbi of the British Empire (Second Edition ) London, Soncino Press 1990
" This Divine name is spoken of as the Tetragrammaton, which is a greek word meaning " the Name of four letters". The High Priest of old pronounced it , AS WRITTEN ( He makes the distinction of as written and as pronounced in normal reading..MY NOTE) on the Day of Atonement during the temple service; whereupon ALL the people fell on their faces and exclaimed, " Blessed be His name whose glorious kingdom is for ever and ever."Page 7

Is it not interesting how this could fit in to the events of John 18?!?

Pythagoras

January 26th 2006, 05:03 PM

Scripture makes it abandantly clear that Jesus is neither the angel Michael nor Yhwh God. He's the second Adam, the son of God, Messiah.

That is easy !!! He was called "I AM".

Unfortunately even the blind man in John 9:9 "was called" "EGO EIMI", without the predicate, just like Jesus. Was he God to?

Note the events of John 18. WHY did they fall backwards to the ground???

Because they got a taste of what it is like to be in the awesome presence of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah Son of God.

All you have said so far is that Jesus is God because those who came to arrest him fell backwards to the ground when Messiah identified himself as Jesus of Nazareth.

NIV, John 18:4-5,

"Jesus, knowing all that was going yo happen to him, went out and asked them, "Who is it you want?"
"Jesus of Nazareth," they replied.
"I am he", Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them). When Jesus said,"I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground."

good luck,

Topherlee

January 26th 2006, 07:02 PM

That is easy !!! He was called "I AM". Note the events of John 18. WHY did they fall backwards to the ground??? Then after you puzzel a while read this from Jewish sources;

I also found this quote from "Pentateuch and Haftorahs; Hebrew text , English Translation and commentary" Edited by Dr. J.H. Hertz Late Chief Rabbi of the British Empire (Second Edition ) London, Soncino Press 1990
" This Divine name is spoken of as the Tetragrammaton, which is a greek word meaning " the Name of four letters". The High Priest of old pronounced it , AS WRITTEN ( He makes the distinction of as written and as pronounced in normal reading..MY NOTE) on the Day of Atonement during the temple service; whereupon ALL the people fell on their faces and exclaimed, " Blessed be His name whose glorious kingdom is for ever and ever."Page 7

Is it not interesting how this could fit in to the events of John 18?!?

Well, I do no agree. "I AM" is not a name at all. "I AM" is God basically saying "He shall prove to be whatever He shall prove to be". When Jesus says "I am he", he is referring to the one spoken of in prophecy. Not that he is Jehovah God. When Jesus says he is the "Son of God", He is basically saying that he himself is a servant of Jehovah God. This is scripture.

1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

1. Go through your bible and see how many times it says "God the Father".
2. See how many times it never says "God the Son"; or for that matter, "God the Holy Spirit".
3. See how many times the Tetragram is applied to the Father. Being the fact that Jehovah is the Fathers name; God.
4. See how many times Jesus is referred to as the Lord.

This is that easy. The only quotes I need to show you are in the bible.

Exodus 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD (Jehovah) 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.

Is today not part of forever? Are we not part of all generations?

John 17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

Again, we see that Jesus declares Jehovah God, is his Fathers name. Also see where Jesus reads from the scrolls in Isaiah - he mentions his Fathers name again. Should I mention the Lord's Prayer.

Oldmonk

January 27th 2006, 03:03 PM

Scripture makes it abandantly clear that Jesus is neither the angel Michael nor Yhwh God. He's the second Adam, the son of God, Messiah.

Unfortunately even the blind man in John 9:9 "was called" "EGO EIMI", without the predicate, just like Jesus. Was he God to?

Because they got a taste of what it is like to be in the awesome presence of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah Son of God.

All you have said so far is that Jesus is God because those who came to arrest him fell backwards to the ground when Messiah identified himself as Jesus of Nazareth.

NIV, John 18:4-5,

"Jesus, knowing all that was going yo happen to him, went out and asked them, "Who is it you want?"
"Jesus of Nazareth," they replied.
"I am he", Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them). When Jesus said,"I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground."

good luck,

Yes I know Jesus is not an angel but God incarnate.... My point is that when JESUS speaks "I AM" (ego ami in Greek; Ani hu in Hebrew) he is not just refering to the fact that he is the one they are looking for but connects himself to Ex. 3:14. Note when Jesus said that "Before Abraham was "I AM". Do you not think the structure a bit odd?? Could he not have used the word "was"??? Why do you think he used "I AM"? Also note what the Rabbi I quoted says. It is my belief after studying the text and passage ,with the remarks of the rabbi in mind, That he spoke the DIVINE NAME ( or as the Jewish refer to it as the plain name...because when using that name there is absolutely no doubt of to whom you refer) YHWH. It may be that the writer, scribes substituted I Am for YHWH. This could have been done to preserve the sacridness of the name according to rabbinic tradition as well as stem an enevitable backlash by the Jewish community as a whole.

Oldmonk

January 27th 2006, 03:19 PM

Well, I do no agree. "I AM" is not a name at all. "I AM" is God basically saying "He shall prove to be whatever He shall prove to be". When Jesus says "I am he", he is referring to the one spoken of in prophecy. Not that he is Jehovah God. When Jesus says he is the "Son of God", He is basically saying that he himself is a servant of Jehovah God. This is scripture.

1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

1. Go through your bible and see how many times it says "God the Father".
2. See how many times it never says "God the Son"; or for that matter, "God the Holy Spirit".
3. See how many times the Tetragram is applied to the Father. Being the fact that Jehovah is the Fathers name; God.
4. See how many times Jesus is referred to as the Lord.

This is that easy. The only quotes I need to show you are in the bible.

Exodus 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD (Jehovah) 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.

Is today not part of forever? Are we not part of all generations?

John 17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

Again, we see that Jesus declares Jehovah God, is his Fathers name. Also see where Jesus reads from the scrolls in Isaiah - he mentions his Fathers name again. Should I mention the Lord's Prayer.

Okay if Jesus was not God then how could his death atone for sins against God?? If you sined against me in some way do you think restitution for that sin can be effected by someone else??? NO!!! You are the one that must atone...That is UNLESS I say I will atone it for you (ie. forgive by bearing the cost. ) Also look at who raised Jesus. Jesus says it will be HIMSELF ( John 2:18-21) Paul says GOD raised Jesus. Who is lying??? Jesus...if so we shouldn't put any stock in what he says...ie. disregard the whole thing as a fairy tale?!? God...If God lies we are in DEEP trouble!!!! No the only way is to see Jesus as divine.Jesus IS NOT the Father...that is quite clear!!! Jesus however attributes to himself things that only GOD could do. ie. forgive sin, raise the dead, see into the hearts of men, Give life, KNOW the Father. You guys make a lot of noise about Jesus only being the son of God...let me ask you this... When you have a child is that child a goat, or a snake , or anything else other than a human just as you are??? So if Jesus IS the son of God doesn't that imply that he has the SAME NATURE AND ESSENCE AS GOD being he is his son???
As to your quote in Peter. You MUST remember that as that refers to Jesus in his humanity here on earth. Jesus says that he will only do as the Father wants. This is the same when a son or daughter obays there parents. They give up their free will to do as their parents say. Yes the Father is "Greater" than the son but that in NO WAY makes him BETTER!! George Bush is greater than I because he has power to do things I cannot but does that mean that Mr. Bush is an alien from space and not human as I??? Does that mean that George Bush is "BETTER " than I in human terms??? Please ponder these things!!!!

Topherlee

January 27th 2006, 04:57 PM

Oldmonk
"Okay if Jesus was not God then how could his death atone for sins against God?? If you sined against me in some way do you think restitution for that sin can be effected by someone else??? NO!!! You are the one that must atone...That is UNLESS I say I will atone it for you (ie. forgive by bearing the cost.)"

Man sinned against God. God did not need to atone himself for our sins. He needed a man to atone for our sins. This is why Jesus is referred to a the "last Adam". Adam was the first man who sinned and Jesus, as fully man, atoned for our sins. This was his purpose given to him by God.

"Also look at who raised Jesus. Jesus says it will be HIMSELF ( John 2:18-21) Paul says GOD raised Jesus. Who is lying??? Jesus...if so we shouldn't put any stock in what he says...ie. disregard the whole thing as a fairy tale?!? God...If God lies we are in DEEP trouble!!!! No the only way is to see Jesus as divine."

Verse 21 is clear to what Jesus is speaking of. He is not speaking of himself, that he will raise his physical body, but the body that is of the church. The body of Jesus is used as a metaphor regarding the church.
John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Acts Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

"Jesus IS NOT the Father...that is quite clear!!! Jesus however attributes to himself things that only GOD could do. ie. forgive sin, raise the dead, see into the hearts of men, Give life, KNOW the Father."

The bible is clear that this can Jesus do by the authority given to him by God. After all, he is our Lord.
Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

The keyword is given; God gave authority to Jesus to do these things.

"You guys make a lot of noise about Jesus only being the son of God...let me ask you this... When you have a child is that child a goat, or a snake , or anything else other than a human just as you are??? So if Jesus IS the son of God doesn't that imply that he has the SAME NATURE AND ESSENCE AS GOD being he is his son???"

Okay, I will hold you to that same terminology and practical wisdom. If I become a father, that means I would have to produce a son, generate, beget. Only then can I be a father to my son. This is what it means to be a father.
Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen (Rev 3:14 Jesus is also a witness): that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Jesus is the beginning of creation of GOd;
Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Jesus is in not doubt the image of the invisible God; but he is not God. He is the image.
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

These verses and practical wisdom show that Jesus is a creation of God. Please understand what it is to become a father. He is the firstborn of every creature.

"As to your quote in Peter. You MUST remember that as that refers to Jesus in his humanity here on earth. Jesus says that he will only do as the Father wants. This is the same when a son or daughter obays there parents. They give up their free will to do as their parents say. Yes the Father is "Greater" than the son but that in NO WAY makes him BETTER!! George Bush is greater than I because he has power to do things I cannot but does that mean that Mr. Bush is an alien from space and not human as I??? Does that mean that George Bush is "BETTER " than I in human terms??? Please ponder these things!!!!"

Being greater than is being greater than better if you will. Being God Almighty is being Greater than anything. If Jesus is given authoriy from God, he cannot be the Almighty God Jehovah.

Jesus is God's son through creation; Jesus is our brother, our Lord, only through him can you find God our Father.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

How is it that God can have a God when there is only one? The bible does not speak of in essence.
1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Krusader

January 27th 2006, 05:17 PM

Man sinned against God. God did not need to atone himself for our sins. He needed a man to atone for our sins. This is why Jesus is referred to a the "last Adam". Adam was the first man who sinned and Jesus, as fully man, atoned for our sins. This was his purpose given to him by God.

Verse 21 is clear to what Jesus is speaking of. He is not speaking of himself, that he will raise his physical body, but the body that is of the church. The body of Jesus is used as a metaphor regarding the church.
John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Acts Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

The bible is clear that this can Jesus do by the authority given to him by God. After all, he is our Lord.
Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

The keyword is given; God gave authority to Jesus to do these things.

Okay, I will hold you to that same terminology and practical wisdom. If I become a father, that means I would have to produce a son, generate, beget. Only then can I be a father to my son. This is what it means to be a father.
Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen (Rev 3:14 Jesus is also a witness): that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Jesus is the beginning of creation of GOd;
Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Jesus is in not doubt the image of the invisible God; but he is not God. He is the image.
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

These verses and practical wisdom show that Jesus is a creation of God. Please understand what it is to become a father. He is the firstborn of every creature.

Being greater than is being greater than better if you will. Being God Almighty is being Greater than anything. If Jesus is given authoriy from God, he cannot be the Almighty God Jehovah.

Jesus is God's son through creation; Jesus is our brother, our Lord, only through him can you find God our Father.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

How is it that God can have a God when there is only one? The bible does not speak of in essence.
1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

John 2:21 is a direct reference to Christ's physical body - although I can see why Towerite supporters would love to change the meaning (just like they say that "every eye will see Him," means eyes of discernment! Ugh.) What mental gymnastics are necessary to be a Russellite!

In any case, an angel could not die for men - and an infinite atonment must be made by an infinite Being, otherwise the atonement would be finite (in other words, if Jesus was only a man, he could only atone for one other man).

Topherlee

January 27th 2006, 07:16 PM

John 2:21 is a direct reference to Christ's physical body - although I can see why Towerite supporters would love to change the meaning (just like they say that "every eye will see Him," means eyes of discernment! Ugh.) What mental gymnastics are necessary to be a Russellite!

In any case, an angel could not die for men - and an infinite atonment must be made by an infinite Being, otherwise the atonement would be finite (in other words, if Jesus was only a man, he could only atone for one other man).

Look at verse 21 again. How can you say that it refers to his physical body?
John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
Christ is speaking of the church - not his physical body. You clearly see what you want to see.

Jesus was a man approved of God. Look in the book of Acts. As only a man could atone for our sins, not God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
What part of this do you not understand?

Krusader

January 27th 2006, 07:28 PM

Look at verse 21 again. How can you say that it refers to his physical body?
John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
Christ is speaking of the church - not his physical body. You clearly see what you want to see.

Jesus was a man approved of God. Look in the book of Acts. As only a man could atone for our sins, not God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
What part of this do you not understand?

However, the apostles undestood what He said after His resurrection - the resurrection of His physical Body which you deny (and this is why you really have to twist this verse).

Pythagoras

January 27th 2006, 08:21 PM

Hi Oldmonk,

Yes I know Jesus is not an angel but God incarnate....

In many ways it's a far worse error to think Jesus Yhwh(God) than to think him Michael the arch-angel.

My point is that when JESUS speaks "I AM" (ego ami in Greek; Ani hu in Hebrew) he is not just refering to the fact that he is the one they are looking for but connects himself to Ex. 3:14.

This is your opinion or wish(or wishful thinking), which Scripture does not second, unfortunately.

Note when Jesus said that "Before Abraham was "I AM". Do you not think the structure a bit odd?? Could he not have used the word "was"??? Why do you think he used "I AM"?

Well, that's because you're reading it in English. "Ego eimi" (I am) is without significance and was a common Greek phrase. I'm no Greek scholar but even I'm aware that there is no temporal element in it other than that there is a present state of being. "Eimi" is the present tesne of "to be", thus, talking the Greek construction into account; we find that Jesus was in a state of being before Abraham, though we are never told for how long before Abraham. The important point here is that most translations here do not render "ego eimi" as a proper name, as would have been the case had Jesus been marking it to proclaim himself Yhwh God. The Greek words at John 8:58 "ego eimi" show the use of the verb "eimi" in the historical present because Jesus was talking about himself in relation to Abraham's past. That is why some translations render it,more accurately, like so.
Moffatt, "I have existed before Abraham was born",

Sacred Bible, "Before Abraham existed, I was existing",

The New Testament, "Jesus said to them, 'I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born!",

The Four Gospels According the the Sinaitic Palimpsest, "He said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I have been.",

The Twentieth Century New Testament, "Believe me 'Jesus replied, 'before Abraham was born I was already what I am.",

WE, "I tell you the truth.I already was before Abraham was born."

The Modern New Testament, "Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was born, I was.",

The Syriac New Testament, "Jesus said to them: Verily, verily, I say to you, That before Abraham existed, I was."

So simply arguing from the trinitarian NIV English bible won't make your case.

Also note what the Rabbi I quoted says. It is my belief after studying the text and passage ,with the remarks of the rabbi in mind, That he spoke the DIVINE NAME ( or as the Jewish refer to it as the plain name...because when using that name there is absolutely no doubt of to whom you refer) YHWH. It may be that the writer, scribes substituted I Am for YHWH. This could have been done to preserve the sacridness of the name according to rabbinic tradition as well as stem an enevitable backlash by the Jewish community as a whole

I don't know what kind of Rabbi would say such a thing in light of the fact that Exodus 3:14 "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" translated as "I am what I am" is a poor translation . In Exodus 3:12 "Ehyeh" is translated "I will be" !

In conclusion, it's not unfair to say that you're using double standards (or double speak) again. According to you when Jesus says "ego eimi"(John 8:58) it mean's he's God, but when a poor beggar(John 9:9) says "ego eimi", it means he's a poor beggar .

best wishes,

Topherlee

January 27th 2006, 11:18 PM

However, the apostles undestood what He said after His resurrection - the resurrection of His physical Body which you deny (and this is why you really have to twist this verse).

I twist nothing, you clearly do not understand.
John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

If the verse said the "temple, his body", then yeah sure I would understand. But it says the "temple of his body" which is the church.

Ephesians 4:4 There is one body (the church), and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling (we are called to the body-church, of Christ).

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

You see it or don't. But it is not I that twist scripture.

apostoli

January 28th 2006, 01:36 PM

Hi Crusader & Topherlee,

I twist nothing, you clearly do not understand.
John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

If the verse said the "temple, his body", then yeah sure I would understand. But it says the "temple of his body" which is the church.To some extent both your interpretations are valid but I think you are arguing over a different question.

Did Jesus raise himself from the dead?

A.Paul is quite emphatic throughout his letters that it was the Father that raised Jesus from the dead, but it was through Jesus' subjection to the Father that made this possible. If we immitate Christ, then we too will be raised. Consider Romans 8:8-11 with John 17:21-23, Phil 2:7-9.

Oldmonk

January 28th 2006, 04:36 PM

Look at verse 21 again. How can you say that it refers to his physical body?
John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
Christ is speaking of the church - not his physical body. You clearly see what you want to see.

Was Paul speaking of the church when he said;
2Cr 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Jesus was a man approved of God. Look in the book of Acts. As only a man could atone for our sins, not God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
What part of this do you not understand?

ALL MEN fall short of the Glory of God. Even if Jesus was a mere man then who would atone for HIS sins??? And as Crusader rightly says how would one man win salvation to ALL men. If we look in Hebrews we have the answer. Hebrews 7... HIS sacrifice was an EVERLASTING sacrifice. How is that possiable for a mere man?? Also You will find it hard to explain Hebrews 1:4-8 where YHWH ( the Father ) makes it CLEAR that the Son is GOD.
You always seem to have trouble differentiating ESSENCE from POSITION.Note my use of father above...it did not denote ESSENCE but POSITION!!! And your argument from Isaiah is silly because you always take the words "first born" and take it to mean first created...If that is truely the case than GOD either lied or forgot that Abraham not only had a son besides Isaac but an OLDER son at that!!! " Take now thy son , thine ONLY son Isaac.... " Gen 22:2 Also in Hebrews 7 it says that Jesus is WITHOUT MOTHER OR FATHER ie. He needed none of them to EXIST. Look at Isaiah 9:6. el gabour [ mighty God... and before you say AH see he is just a mighty god but not the Almighty GOD look at Isaiah 10:21 where mighty God is also used of YHWH. Not only that but to call him a god , as your own bible tells you in John 1:1 of any kind would make him either a false god , or those that give him any creedance as a god polytheists!!!Thus the Watchtower is obviously polytheists and going against the very scripture you quote!!!ie. Isaiah 43:10 ],AVI OD [ EVERLASTING FATHER...How can that apply to just a mere man or even an angel for that matter!?!, Shar shalom [ the Prince of Peace. Now from the start of the verse we see unto US a child is is born, unto US a Son is given How also from your explanation can you explain the verse "Thou art (already there) my Son THIS day have I begotten Thee" NOTE that because he IS his Son he begats him..NOT I begat thee because you are my son... See the difference??? Jesus' sonship was before he was begotten BECAUSE HE ALWAYS WAS.
Just a thought in regards to Jesus being Michale. Jesus says that Moses wrote of him... Where in the bible did Moses ever write of Michael?!?Look at Luke 24:27 How is this possiable?!?

Oldmonk

January 28th 2006, 05:34 PM

Hi Oldmonk,

In many ways it's a far worse error to think Jesus Yhwh(God) than to think him Michael the arch-angel.

This is your opinion or wish(or wishful thinking), which Scripture does not second, unfortunately.

Well, that's because you're reading it in English. "Ego eimi" (I am) is without significance and was a common Greek phrase. I'm no Greek scholar but even I'm aware that there is no temporal element in it other than that there is a present state of being. "Eimi" is the present tesne of "to be", thus, talking the Greek construction into account; we find that Jesus was in a state of being before Abraham, though we are never told for how long before Abraham. The important point here is that most translations here do not render "ego eimi" as a proper name, as would have been the case had Jesus been marking it to proclaim himself Yhwh God. The Greek words at John 8:58 "ego eimi" show the use of the verb "eimi" in the historical present because Jesus was talking about himself in relation to Abraham's past. That is why some translations render it,more accurately, like so.
Moffatt, "I have existed before Abraham was born",

Sacred Bible, "Before Abraham existed, I was existing",

The New Testament, "Jesus said to them, 'I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born!",

The Four Gospels According the the Sinaitic Palimpsest, "He said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I have been.",

The Twentieth Century New Testament, "Believe me 'Jesus replied, 'before Abraham was born I was already what I am.",

WE, "I tell you the truth.I already was before Abraham was born."

The Modern New Testament, "Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was born, I was.",

The Syriac New Testament, "Jesus said to them: Verily, verily, I say to you, That before Abraham existed, I was."

So simply arguing from the trinitarian NIV English bible won't make your case.

I don't know what kind of Rabbi would say such a thing in light of the fact that Exodus 3:14 "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" translated as "I am what I am" is a poor translation . In Exodus 3:12 "Ehyeh" is translated "I will be" !

In conclusion, it's not unfair to say that you're using double standards (or double speak) again. According to you when Jesus says "ego eimi"(John 8:58) it mean's he's God, but when a poor beggar(John 9:9) says "ego eimi", it means he's a poor beggar .

best wishes,

Deuteronomy 6:4 CANNOT support the notion of monotheism!! Let us look at the Hebrew "Shma y'srael YHWH elohenu YHWH ECHAD. The problem here is that the Hebrew word Echad is NOT an ABSOLUTE ONENESS but a COMPOUND ONENESS. Look how it is used in various scriptures; man and his wife will become ONE [echad ] flesh; They shouted with ONE [echad] voice; they fought as ONE [echad] man.... ALL of these show that echad is a COMPOUND oneness. I could show you many more examples where that word is used that shows this idea... Even in Genesis where is says that the eveining and the morning was the FIRST [ECHAD]( one of many) day. It would be rediculous to say that when a man marries a woman they become absolutely one person would it not. It was not just ONE mans shout that brought down the walls of Jerico was it??? A war is not generally fought with just two people is it?? NO!!!
And if you have read any of my other posts you would see that the Watchtower goes against Isaiah 43:10 when they say that the Word was a god. Their interpretation of that verse makes them either polytheists or giving praise [ I think that we ALL can say that we respect Jesus] to a FALSE god thus breaking the FIRST commandment and showing that they do not believe what the scriptures teach! The ONLY way for Jesus to be who John claims Jesus to be is if Jesus is ACTUALLY GOD. If he is a created creature called God then he must be a FALSE God because of Isaiah 43:10 Isaiah 44:8 etc. etc. So the Watchtower bible is not correct in saying that Jesus is "a god" at all!!! So no matter how they strugle and try to twist the scriptures they cannot escape that pesky word theos in John 1. There IS a solution however... If JESUS is THE SAME GOD as YHWH then we have no contradiction between those verses in Isaiah and John 1:1. NOW. HOW is Jesus YHWH??? Is he the Father?? NO! Scripture CLEARLY says he is not BUT that is not the propper question. The question to be answered is is Jesus of DIVINE ESSENCE?? YES!!! Zechariah 11:12... YHWH worth 30 pieces of silver ZECH. 12:10 YHWH pierced(???)[When and how could this happen???]Romans 10:9 LORD Jesus ( The KIT shows the deception of the Watchtower here... Look at the bottom of the KIT... It says HaADON NOT JEHOVAH... Yet in their OWN Bible it says that HaADON can ONLY refer to JEHOVAH!!!GREEN DRAGON]
There are MANY verses that connect Jesus with DEITY...obviously too many for the Watchtower to change or destort as they do in John 1:1... In the Old Testament John the Baptist is the forrunner of YHWH yet in the New Testament he is the forrunner of JESUS... How??? I will let you digest and ponder these things

Joe Gofish

January 28th 2006, 08:42 PM

I would like to challenge any JW posting here to prove from the Bible that Jesus is the Archangel Michael (as the Watchtower teaches).

Would any individual stranded on an island with only a Bible to read, come away believing that Jesus was the Archangel Michael?
A true JW cannot tell you who Jesus is ,Chas Russell the founder is like some on this board they think they know the Bible inside and out and us Private ininterptetations to make their point and most of the time are just WRONG

Topherlee

January 29th 2006, 12:20 PM

apostoli Hi Crusader & Topherlee,

To some extent both your interpretations are valid but I think you are arguing over a different question.

Did Jesus raise himself from the dead?

Both cannot be valid interpretations. Either one is right or both are wrong. This verse without interpretation speaks of the "temple of Jesus" being the church.
The Jews thought he was speaking of the physical church, the temple, th building;
John 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
All other verses pertaining to the raising of Jesus Christ from the dead say that God had raised him from the dead.
Acts 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

This verse in the book of Mark no way implies that Christ is God. But he sits on the right hand of God.

A.Paul is quite emphatic throughout his letters that it was the Father that raised Jesus from the dead, but it was through Jesus' subjection to the Father that made this possible. If we immitate Christ, then we too will be raised. Consider Romans 8:8-11 with John 17:21-23, Phil 2:7-9.

It was not through Jesus' subjection, but rather submission, that he gave up the ghost; died. He clearly did not want to be tortured and suffer death;
Matthew 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Topherlee

January 29th 2006, 12:47 PM

Oldmonk
ALL MEN fall short of the Glory of God. Even if Jesus was a mere man then who would atone for HIS sins??? And as Crusader rightly says how would one man win salvation to ALL men. If we look in Hebrews we have the answer. Hebrews 7... HIS sacrifice was an EVERLASTING sacrifice. How is that possiable for a mere man?? Also You will find it hard to explain Hebrews 1:4-8 where YHWH ( the Father ) makes it CLEAR that the Son is GOD.

This was Jehovahs plan, to give man a chance at salvation. He sent his "faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God (Rev 3:14)" to atone for our sins. And as a man John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh. He was made a man; the last Adam.
His sacrifice was EVERLASTING because Jesus did Jehovah God's will.
Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

Are you saying that only the death of God could atone for our sins? Because this proves to be a problematic theory. You are saying that God made a mistake by letting man sin and that this is the only way he could resolve the problem by suffering for this mistake. Is God fallible?

Hebrews 1:4-8 does not say that Jesus is God. This is an error on the part of the scribes that wrote this verse;
Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
The verse actually says, "the throne of God".
Jesus is God's right hand man if you will. He sits to the right of the throne of God.

You say that in Position that the Father is greater that the Son. Then how are they co-equal? How is it that Jesus can only do what he sees the Father doing - which is to say by God's authority - that Jesus is the Almighty God? There are many questions you need to ask yourself before you find practical wisdom...

God is a Spirit? Yet you say that the holy spirit is also God. How many spirit gods are there? Is not God himself Holy?

Oldmonk

January 29th 2006, 04:50 PM

This was Jehovahs plan, to give man a chance at salvation. He sent his "faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God (Rev 3:14)" to atone for our sins. And as a man John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh. He was made a man; the last Adam.
His sacrifice was EVERLASTING because Jesus did Jehovah God's will.
Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. Are you saying that only the death of God could atone for our sins? Because this proves to be a problematic theory. You are saying that God made a mistake by letting man sin and that this is the only way he could resolve the problem by suffering for this mistake. Is God fallible?

NO!!! God had to allow for mans free will!! If he didn't he might as well built robots. God wanted people who would LOVE and worship him...Seeing that God is outside of time and space he saw that this was the way to do it.It is not productive to second guess the way or means of God. But quite frankly the Watchtower packages God up into a neat little package that you can understand. Now ask yourself if we can understand all the things of God could he truely BE GOD???How is it possiable when He says "My ways are greater than your ways.." How can our finite minds understand the essence of that which is INFINATE?!? Don't you think that there should be a little mystery there where we have to say that we cannot fathom??? I think so!!!

Hebrews 1:4-8 does not say that Jesus is God. This is an error on the part
of the scribes that wrote this verse;
Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
The verse actually says, "the throne of God".
Jesus is God's right hand man if you will. He sits to the right of the throne of God.

STRANGE then you are saying there is a double mistake. That the scribe that penned those words in the OLD TESTAMENT made an error and the scribe in the New Testament perpetuated that error. Come on, lets be real about this. If your arguments are so weak that you have to quible about the text there is not much I can say to a mind that will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid the text!Please read Psalm 45:6,7. You would then also have to say that the writer of Hebrews misused the text in Psalms and then there would be no foundation for ANY text because it was ALL scribed wrong and misused or understood by ANY but the Watchtower!!!
You say that in Position that the Father is greater that the Son. Then how are they co-equal?
They are co-equal in ESSENCE. Are your children not equal to you in humanity but not possition??? Do not forget that Jesuse is said to have taken on the form of humanity which implies he wasn't human to begin with by the way . See Philippians 2:6-11. Note also that the Father gave him an name above EVERY name. Also note that the verses 10,11 are attributed to YHWH in Isaiah 45:23

How is it that Jesus can only do what he sees the Father doing - which is to say by God's authority
If a slave does everything you ask of him does that mean he is not equally human as you??? He WILLED to do only what the father asked of Him..HE made that choice!!
- that Jesus is the Almighty God?
YES He IS. How can the FULLNESS of the Godhead be in anything else but devine?? That is what the scriptures say of the nature of Jesus!!!

There are many questions you need to ask yourself before you find practical wisdom...

God is a Spirit? Yet you say that the holy spirit is also God. How many spirit gods are there? Is not God himself Holy?
Read Revelations and it tells you:)

alam

January 29th 2006, 05:37 PM

Deuteronomy 6:4 CANNOT support the notion of monotheism!! Let us look at the Hebrew "Shma y'srael YHWH elohenu YHWH ECHAD. The problem here is that the Hebrew word Echad is NOT an ABSOLUTE ONENESS but a COMPOUND ONENESS. Look how it is used in various scriptures; man and his wife will become ONE [echad ] flesh; They shouted with ONE [echad] voice; they fought as ONE [echad] man.... ALL of these show that echad is a COMPOUND oneness. I could show you many more examples where that word is used that shows this idea... Even in Genesis where is says that the eveining and the morning was the FIRST [ECHAD]( one of many) day. It would be rediculous to say that when a man marries a woman they become absolutely one person would it not. It was not just ONE mans shout that brought down the walls of Jerico was it??? A war is not generally fought with just two people is it?? NO!!!

Gesenius gives ten definitions of singular Echad (אֶחָד). The seventh definition, the one with the thought of togetherness or compound unity, describes Echad with the prefix 'Kaph' (כְּאֶחָד). This literally translates, "like one" or "as one". The Shema does not say that YHWH is merely "as" one. As you can see, there is no Kaph prefix in Deuteronomy 6:4:

שְׁמַע יִשׂרָאֵל ײ אֱלהֵינוּ ײ אֶחָד

Something to note: Gesenius' fifth definition of Echad is "one only of its kind, Job 23:13; Ezekiel 7:5; Cant. 6:9." He makes a comparison to the Arabic cognate WaaHid (ﺪﺣﺍﻭ), which can mean "only one, incomparable."

In the past, Pythagoras and I have dealt at some length with the claim of Echad as a plurality and alleged instances supporting it. Here is a relevant thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=52115&page=31&pp=16).

apostoli

January 30th 2006, 04:02 AM

Hi Topherlee,

...no way implies that Christ is God.My friend, I suspect you are suffering battle fatigue. I'm not here to attack you but to discuss exegesis of scripture.

My previous post was in regard to interpretation of Jn 2:21. Not whether Jesus is or is not God. Pointedly, I find nothing in Jn 2:21 that even suggests it. Those that advocate that it implies Jesus directly raised himself from the dead are specifically refuted by A.Paul at Rom 1:8-9; 10:9 therefore define themselves as "unsaved".

Please consider the following in the above light with Acts 17:11; 1 Jn 4:1.

[Crusader,] I twist nothing, you clearly do not understand.
John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

If the verse said the "temple, his body", then yeah sure I would understand. But it says the "temple of his body" which is the church.To some extent both your interpretations are valid but I think you are arguing over a different question.Both cannot be valid interpretations. Either one is right or both are wrong. This verse without interpretation speaks of the "temple of Jesus" being the church.I did qualify by saying "To some extent". It is possible that all of us are "in error". Right would imply one has epignosis. Wrong implies one has little gnosis. Error simply implies that one is on a path leading to epignosis.

I'm presuming you read Romans 8:8-11 with John 17:21-23, Phil 2:7-9 using the NWT. I recommend you read the same verses in the NWT Interlinear or the KJV to get an understanding nearer to my viewpoint. In any case I'll attempt to explain my earlier remark...

Considering the events of John 2:13-19, the Jewish question & Jesus reply at Jn 2:18-20 it is obvious (as you said) that the Jews thought Jesus was speaking of the Temple building in Jerusalem. Which in a way Jesus was. He was talking of the place appointed for pure worship (cp: Jn 2:16-18). Jesus remarks to the Samaritan woman a little later are of interest in this regard: "believe me the hour cometh, when you shall neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father...the hour comes and now is, when true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such to worship him" (Jn 4:19-24). I trust everyone agrees that the temple worship was corrupted but there is another subtlty which is easy to miss. In the temple worship, the Jew sought God. Whereas, in the new arrangement, God seeks those who worship in spirit and truth. How does God find us? By our belief that God sent his only Son to be the one acceptable sacrifice for all mankinds sin, and that the Father raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 1:8-9; 10:9). The temple, the high priests, the sacrifices prefigured the Son's offering and in this way Jesus is the temple itself (Heb 9)!

It is a very broad interpretation of general scripture to understand Jn 2:21 as referring to the Christian congregation. Though if one understands A.Paul's teaching on unity, it is not an understanding that should be quickly disgarded. So lets consider the evidence for your view...

Some, will set up a straw man and tell you "the Christian church didn't exist at the time Jesus razed the temple, so it is obvious that A.John is not talking of 'the temple of his body' as being the church. One cannot destroy or raise up something that is yet to exist!"

There is a lot of scriptural support for this view. For instance: Nowhere in scripture is the congregation directly refered to as the "temple of God". Nor do we find direct reference to, your phrase, the "temple of Jesus". Likewise, never is the Christian congregation called the temple of God, but rather the "body of Christ". A.Paul says the body of Christ has many members which act as one, but in regards to the "temple of God", A.Paul says it is found in each individual (1 Cor 3:15-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16).

From Crusaders viewpoint, A.Paul seems not to allow any other interpretation of Jn 2:21, other than refering to Jesus physical body. And this is where Romans 8:8-11 with John 17:21-23 comes into play and we find some commonality between your view and Crusader. At least, if we read the greek "en" as meaning "in" and not "in union" as the NWT has it.

All Christians agree that Jesus has the spirit of God the Father in him. And the spirit of God will dwell in us also (1 Cor 3:16), if we have the spirit of Christ indwelling in us (Rom 8:9-11). As Jesus prayed "[Father let] I be in them, and you in me that they be made perfect in one" (Jn 17:23).

And this is where I can agree with both you and Crusader to some extent. The temple in Jerusalem was meant to be the place of pure worship and sacrifical offerings, through which one drew near to God. Jesus replaced the temple. He became the temple, as it is through Jesus that we now glorify the Father. In Jesus, God dwelt, and Jesus did not defile his body, he remained sinless, as he knew himself to be the temple of God, in which the one acceptable sacrifice would be offered (Heb 9). We immitate Christ and know that our bodies are each a temple of God, but as a congregation we join with Christ and act as one body, as a single temple, for the glorification of the Father. We in Jesus, are now the place of pure worship!

I think you [and Crusader] are arguing over a different question.

Did Jesus raise himself from the dead?

A.Paul is quite emphatic throughout his letters that it was the Father that raised Jesus from the dead, but it was through Jesus' subjection to the Father that made this possible. If we immitate Christ, then we too will be raised. Consider Romans 8:8-11 with John 17:21-23, Phil 2:7-9.John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
All other verses pertaining to the raising of Jesus Christ from the dead say that God had raised him from the dead.
Acts 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.My friend, you might notice I did say "it was the Father that raised Jesus from the dead". I have no dispute with you in this regard.

Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. This verse in the book of Mark no way implies that Christ is God. But he sits on the right hand of God.

This verse in the book of Mark no way implies that Christ is God. But he sits on the right hand of God.1 Cor 15:24-28 helps understand the kingdom arrangement. I guess it all comes down to one's understand of the last clause of vs28 "that God may be all in all" (KJV, NWT Interlinear) or "that God may be all things to everyone" (NWT).

Rev 22:1-3 might arbitrate as both God and the Lamb possess the one throne - "the throne of God and the Lamb". I suspect that this is the glory that Jesus prayed for at Jn 17:5 "the glory which [he] had with [the Father] before the world was." (cp: Col 15:16-19). Of more import to us, Rev 3:21 "To him that overcomes will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I overcame and am set down with my Father in his throne." (cp: 2 Pet 1:4). One might though Rev as interpreting 1 Cor 15:28 as implying that our need to have a God ceases, as we become his unified family, headed by the Father of all.

Personally, I believe only the Father is God of himself. And the Son is God by birth right / inheritance; and before all the creative works, the one by whom the Father made all things (cp: 1 Cor 8:6).

We could get into a discussion about whether the Son was born or created, but the scriptures are silent regarding how he came to be, and we have A.Paul's advice that "the things of God knoweth no man" (1 Cor 2:11) so it would only be philosophical speculation. However, one definition of God is he is before time, before creation and he created all things. All attributes seen in the scriptures as applying to the Son. And though all his attributes are derived from the Father, A.Paul attests that "it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell" (Col 1:19). One might say, that the Son has been made God to us, so that the Father would be glorified. After all the Son didn't come to preach "God", but to preach the knowable, approachable Father of whom are all things!

It was not through Jesus' subjection, but rather submission, that he gave up the ghost; died. He clearly did not want to be tortured and suffer death;
Matthew 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.As man, even as a perfect man, one would want to avoid pain and suffering if possible. It is a great mystery that Jesus loved us so much, that he underwent those tortures for us. And a greater mystery that the Father would love us sinners so much, that he allowed his Son to suffer to save us!

Your appeal to the word "submit" is of interest, as it implies Phil 2:6 is saying Jesus in his pre-existence had equality with God. Consider word usage in the English language: the various Kings of England, were forced to submit themselves to King Richard but continued to rebell because they wouldn't subject themselves to him.

Phillipians (NWT) says "he humbled himself and became obedient" (Phil 2:9) because "he...took a slave's form" (Phil 2:7). The Greek word "soulou" is better translated "bond servant", where a free man makes himself a slave. This is called freely making oneself subject to another, a complete, irrevocable submission to anothers will!

NonTrinitarian

January 30th 2006, 10:41 AM

Gesenius gives ten definitions of singular Echad (אֶחָד). The seventh definition, the one with the thought of togetherness or compound unity, describes Echad with the prefix 'Kaph' (כְּאֶחָד). This literally translates, "like one" or "as one". The Shema does not say that YHWH is merely "as" one. As you can see, there is no Kaph prefix in Deuteronomy 6:4:

שְׁמַע יִשׂרָאֵל ײ אֱלהֵינוּ ײ אֶחָד

Something to note: Gesenius' fifth definition of Echad is "one only of its kind, Job 23:13; Ezekiel 7:5; Cant. 6:9." He makes a comparison to the Arabic cognate WaaHid (ﺪﺣﺍﻭ), which can mean "only one, incomparable."

In the past, Pythagoras and I have dealt at some length with the claim of Echad as a plurality and alleged instances supporting it. Here is a relevant thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=52115&page=31&pp=16).

Good point. This quote comes from the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" by Brian Holt:

"According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Moses wrote the word "one" 21 times in the book of Deuteronomy. Of those 21 times he wrote "one", 20 times he used the word echad...Some in these verses who are said to be "one" are various humans, a city and a gate. Does Moses' use of echad suggest he was trying to convey those he said were echad were multiple persons [or objects] in unity? The above verses show this is obviously not what Moses had in mind.

The arguement that Moses used echad for the special reason of supporting the trinity is pointless. Of course Moses used echad when he said God was one. He used echad nearly every other time he wanted to say the word "one"! In fact, 95% of the time Moses said "one", he used echad. The statisitcal data drawn from Deuteronomy does not support the theory that Moses' using echad in regard to God had any special significance. Since echad is about the only word for "one" Moses used in his writings, it would have been far more significant if Moses had not used echad in regard to God!

Anothony Buzzard and Charles Hunting discuss this Trinitarian argument as well. They point out that the sense of plurality comes from the collective noun, not the adjective "one." They state, "Echad is a numerical adjective and naturally enough is sometimes found modifying a collective noun-one family-one herd, one bunch. But we should observe carefully the sense of plurality resides int he compound noun and not in the word echad...It is subterfuge to transfer to "one" the plurality which belongs only to the following noun. It would be similar to saying "one" really means "one hundred" when it appears in the combination "one centipede".

It's precisely arguments like these proposed by Trinitarians that make me both laugh and feel sorry for them at the same time. In fact, I have spoken to saveral Trinitarians, even some here at Tweb, that distance themselves from this idiotic argument. But, when you don't have much support for a three-headed God, you gotta drum up something. Even if it is subterfuge.

Pythagoras

January 30th 2006, 02:39 PM

Hi Oldmonk,

Deuteronomy 6:4 CANNOT support the notion of monotheism!!

This is an incredible claim!

Let us look at the Hebrew "Shma y'srael YHWH elohenu YHWH ECHAD. The problem here is that the Hebrew word Echad is NOT an ABSOLUTE ONENESS but a COMPOUND ONENESS. Look how it is used in various scriptures; man and his wife will become ONE [echad ] flesh; They shouted with ONE [echad] voice; they fought as ONE [echad] man.... ALL of these show that echad is a COMPOUND oneness. I could show you many more examples where that word is used that shows this idea... Even in Genesis where is says that the eveining and the morning was the FIRST [ECHAD]( one of many) day. It would be rediculous to say that when a man marries a woman they become absolutely one person would it not. It was not just ONE mans shout that brought down the walls of Jerico was it??? A war is not generally fought with just two people is it?? NO!!!

Please read Alam's post #58 .

Oldmonk, the Hebrew for the number or numeral "one" is echad(1), shenayim is "two"(2), shalosh is "three"(3), arba is "four"(4),etc. Had the Jews not used "echad" for God, it would be like us not using the English "one"(1) to describe the one God. Had the bible used yachid instead you would probably charge it for not using the everyday Hebrew word for "one"(echad) to describe God! By any grammatical standard, in Hebrew, and certainly in English, any plurality of an noun which is either modified by an adjective or an indefinite pronoun, comes from the definition of the noun being modified, rather than from another modifier.

If he is a created creature called God then he must be a FALSE God because of Isaiah 43:10 Isaiah 44:8 etc. etc.

Infact it's the other way round. If Jesus is "God"(Yhwh), he becomes a false God because the bible says there is only one true God. Butif Jesus is "god"(Elohim) like Moses(Elohim) Ex7:1 and the Judges(Theoi) are in John 10:34,Ps.82, then there is no problem. If as you say, a creature called god is necessarily a false god, then God Himself was producing a false God in Exodus 7:1 when he called Moses "the God(Elohim) of Pharaoh" and God Himself was producing a false prophet when he designated Aaron Moses's prophet.

HOW is Jesus YHWH??? Is he the Father?? NO! Scripture CLEARLY says he is not BUT that is not the propper question.

Well then you have a problem. Let's look in Scripture, starting with the most famous messianic prophecy:

"For unto us a child is born .., and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty Almighty, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6

Where is the trinity? Did God forget that Jesus was not the Father but the Son? Remember the Athanasian creed says the persons are not to be confounded. If words meaning anything!

best wishes,

Krusader

January 30th 2006, 02:48 PM

NonTrinitarian

January 30th 2006, 03:04 PM

Oldmonk

January 30th 2006, 04:02 PM

Ha ha ha. Man, it gets better and better around here. Have you heard of Ignatius? He was in the 2nd century and called Jesus God throughout his writings. So how does your archealogical evidence weigh any heavier than that? I agree the apostasy started in the 2nd century. What we recognize is that the fundamentel doctrine of the Trinity was not fully established until Constantine. Want me to quote some Trinitarian authors who state the same thing?

Incidently, I was in Taiwan last year in their museum and saw numerous statues of trinities that dated before Christ. (These were all from the Asian culture) I wanted so badly to take pictures of them but they wouldn't let you do that. Interesting how some of them had three heads but one body. Seems I seen a statue from Christendom depicting the same thing with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. So one thing I would agree with Crusader on is this. Trinities were around long before Nicene.

You still have not addressed my accusation that the watchtower by its own thinking is polytheistic!!! If as your John 1:1 says that Jesus is A god and God says in Isaiah 43:10 that no god has or ever will be formed then how is Jesus a god?!? Please dont use the Mormon trick and quote the verse "are ye not gods" because the psalms betrays that argument as a sham because it goes on to say "but ye shall die like men". Moses was a god only to Israel and definately didn't reside in heaven...he did not have divinity. You also have not shown how or when YHWH was pierced in Zechariah 12:10 . Or how John the Baptist was forrunner to YHWH as stated in the Old Testament but in the New Jesus says that he was HIS forrunner. There has been a lame try in explaining away Hebrews 1:8 that I showed couldn't be unless we totally ignore ALL scripture. And my view of Echad has not been forgotten either because the very same stucture of the word is used in most of my verses shown. You will also have to explaine why the KIT in Romans 10:9 they have the footnote "Lord h'adone NOT Jehovah " when in your very own green covered bible it says that h'adone can ONLY refer to JEHOVAH... Thus your own bible proclaims Jesus as JEHOVAH by your own theology!!! Also look in your own NWT at Genesis 19:24. What do you see there???Add to this the fact that God has 7 spirits...and YES they are NOT his ACTIVE fource...(How could you lie to eletricity or an earthquake, or even a shovel that someone is using?!?) Add to this that in your own theology you have two firsts and lasts!!! The one who speaks in Rev 1:8 ,11,17,18 etc. and YHWH. Plus the fact that Jesus also said "Ask anything in MY name and I will do it." Look in your Insight to the Scriptures ... I am telling you the truth and NOT a LIE because you deserve it!!!

NonTrinitarian

January 30th 2006, 04:17 PM

You still have not addressed my accusation that the watchtower by its own thinking is polytheistic!!! If as your John 1:1 says that Jesus is A god and God says in Isaiah 43:10 that no god has or ever will be formed then how is Jesus a god?!? Please dont use the Mormon trick and quote the verse "are ye not gods" because the psalms betrays that argument as a sham because it goes on to say "but ye shall die like men". Moses was a god only to Israel and definately didn't reside in heaven...he did not have divinity. You also have not shown how or when YHWH was pierced in Zechariah 12:10 . Or how John the Baptist was forrunner to YHWH as stated in the Old Testament but in the New Jesus says that he was HIS forrunner. There has been a lame try in explaining away Hebrews 1:8 that I showed couldn't be unless we totally ignore ALL scripture. And my view of Echad has not been forgotten either because the very same stucture of the word is used in most of my verses shown. You will also have to explaine why the KIT in Romans 10:9 they have the footnote "Lord h'adone NOT Jehovah " when in your very own green covered bible it says that h'adone can ONLY refer to JEHOVAH... Thus your own bible proclaims Jesus as JEHOVAH by your own theology!!! Also look in your own NWT at Genesis 19:24. What do you see there???

JW's have answered those verses a dozen times. It's about as difficult to answer those as it was your dumb argument that echad means God is a multipersonality. I blew that away and I can do the same with the others. But quite frankly, I don't feel like it. See the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" if you really want to know the answers to your scriptures in Zechariah, John being the forerunner, etc. And if you don't really want to research it, then why should I waste my time typing it out. As far as gods being applied to humans, Holt also proves these human kings and judges were called gods in a positive sense and Jesus used that to defend his own claim. (where are you getting your arguments from? Robert Bowman? Ha Ha Ha) And your drawing a line in the sand in regards to Moses not being called a god "in heaven" (about fell out of my chair on that one!) is easily refuted when the bible calls angels gods and they do reside in heaven.

Oldmonk

January 30th 2006, 04:30 PM

Good point. This quote comes from the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" by Brian Holt:

It's precisely arguments like these proposed by Trinitarians that make me both laugh and feel sorry for them at the same time. In fact, I have spoken to saveral Trinitarians, even some here at Tweb, that distance themselves from this idiotic argument. But, when you don't have much support for a three-headed God, you gotta drum up something. Even if it is subterfuge.

My Friend you should look at the 13 principles of faith...especially in the Hebrew... by Moses Memonidies ( RAMBAM). In the second clause the Rambam does something I found strange. Instead of using the biblical word echad for his statment of oneness he uses the word yachid. Why? What was wrong with echad especially when that is the word on the lips of every Jewish boy who says his prayers at night??? Was it because he wished to fight the view of christians??? I know that this is speculative but don't you find it odd that such a scholar as the RAMBAM was that he would use another word other than the biblical word??? That not withstanding I direct your attention to the next part where it says that God's oneness in UNLIKE ANY OTHER ONENESS. Now I ask you does that fit more into the view of Absolute oneness... which we have many examples of... or a oneness that man cannot fully understand..ie a compound oneness that is one and yet has sepperate parts???

Pythagoras

January 30th 2006, 04:51 PM

Hi Non-Trin,

Incidently, I was in Taiwan last year in their museum and saw numerous statues of trinities that dated before Christ. (These were all from the Asian culture) I wanted so badly to take pictures of them but they wouldn't let you do that. Interesting how some of them had three heads but one body. Seems I seen a statue from Christendom depicting the same thing with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. So one thing I would agree with Crusader on is this. Trinities were around long before Nicene.

I observed the very thing in my travels through India and China. What you describe is true also of the Indian Trimurthi art(see plate 2 below). To be fair however, some would consider this Modalism, three modes one person. On the other hand St. Patrick used this typology , the Shamrock, to make a case for trinitarianism.

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/trinplates.htm (http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/trinplates.htm)

Plate1(trinitarian), plate 2(oneness or trinitarianism ) and plate 5(tritheism)

Hindus who follow Shiva worship him as Creator, Preserver, and Judge, and timeless interpenetration of these three modes of existence is equivalent to the perichoresis of the "Christian" Trinity.

Here's another interesting link:

http://religion-cults.com/art/trinity4.html (http://religion-cults.com/art/trinity4.html)

best wishes,

NonTrinitarian

January 30th 2006, 04:55 PM

My Friend you should look at the 13 principles of faith...especially in the Hebrew... by Moses Memonidies ( RAMBAM). In the second clause the Rambam does something I found strange. Instead of using the biblical word echad for his statment of oneness he uses the word yachid. Why? What was wrong with echad especially when that is the word on the lips of every Jewish boy who says his prayers at night??? Was it because he wished to fight the view of christians??? I know that this is speculative but don't you find it odd that such a scholar as the RAMBAM was that he would use another word other than the biblical word??? That not withstanding I direct your attention to the next part where it says that God's oneness in UNLIKE ANY OTHER ONENESS. Now I ask you does that fit more into the view of Absolute oneness... which we have many examples of... or a oneness that man cannot fully understand..ie a compound oneness that is one and yet has sepperate parts???

speculative is an understatement on both of your points. Just look at Moses' use of the echad (the Bibilical Moses that is) and it's obvious echad had no special multipersonal meaning. Moses used echad constantly on many items that have no sense of plurality. In fact, he only used yachid ONE time in Deuteronomy while using echad 20 times. So much for the argument that he chose to use echad to suggest a trinity.

Krusader

January 30th 2006, 06:14 PM

JW's have answered those verses a dozen times. It's about as difficult to answer those as it was your dumb argument that echad means God is a multipersonality. I blew that away and I can do the same with the others. But quite frankly, I don't feel like it. See the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" if you really want to know the answers to your scriptures in Zechariah, John being the forerunner, etc. And if you don't really want to research it, then why should I waste my time typing it out. As far as gods being applied to humans, Holt also proves these human kings and judges were called gods in a positive sense and Jesus used that to defend his own claim. (where are you getting your arguments from? Robert Bowman? Ha Ha Ha) And your drawing a line in the sand in regards to Moses not being called a god "in heaven" (about fell out of my chair on that one!) is easily refuted when the bible calls angels gods and they do reside in heaven.

You get your theology from museums in Taiwan? Figures. Since it's obviously not from the Bible. You have at least two gods - Jehovah and the Archangel Michael who is "a god." You are, therefore, polytheistic. Yes, I'd say that Taiwan fits you just right.

apostoli

January 30th 2006, 08:30 PM

Hi OldMonk,

I acknowledge the intention in your conversation with Topherlee, but feel you have fallen into the JW trap of biblical semantics. If I may illustrate by giving a WTS type response to part of your post #52, guided by the WTS publications "Reasoning from the Scriptures" and "Insight on the Scriptures".

Below is an attempt to illustrate the type of argument a mature JW would present. The WTS in times past encouraged that in the preaching work, the first attainment is to find agreement and then present a contra argument in an agreeable fashion and within a scriptural context. If nothing else, it gives a feel to the reasonableness of the WTS arguement. I'll leave it to you to find the suble flaws...

ALL MEN fall short of the Glory of God.Very true! Rom 3:23, which you quote, defines those who find justification through human works and if we read vs24 & 25 we find men justified by faith who elsewhere it is said, in the end times, will receive glory, with every man perfect in Christ Jesus.

"[We are] justified freely by [God's] grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in [Jesus'] blood." (Rom 3:24-25)

"Christ in you, the hope of glory; Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." (Col 1:27-28 cp:3:4)

Did Jesus attempt to redeem himself through works? Was he baptised by John, to show repentence for his own sins? The scriptures say Jesus was born sinless and remained sinless. And he did so, so that the Father would be made manifest to all mankind. As believers we are encouraged to imitate him.

To us he proved that a man by faith can remain sinless by aligning his will with the Father's, and receive the glory of God (cp: Jn 17:22).

Jesus, was truely man, but moreso, he was born a perfect man and the scriptures say that unless you believe God has raised [the Lord Jesus] from the dead you will not be saved (Rom 10:9).

Though all men by nature fall short of the glory of God, those that put on Christ can attain it! And how much more perfect is the one whom God caused to be born unto mankind.

Even if Jesus was a mere man then who would atone for HIS sins???A.Paul calls Jesus the second Adam, a man begotten of the Father, a man who remained sinless.

Did Jesus remain sinless? Was he, as the son of man, the one perfect sacrifice acceptable to God for the redemption of all mankind? The scriptures say so, apostolic tradition says so!

Was it neccessary for God to die for our sins or a man? The scriptures say it was neccessary for a man to die! For through one man made perfectly, sin had entered into the world, and through another made perfectly, sin has been forgiven by God.

However, Jesus was more than just a an ordinary man conceived in the usual way. The scriptures tell us that he existed before all things, and it was through him that all things were made. In times past as the Logos, the wisdom and power, through which God is made manifest, he "was by [God], as one brought up with [God], and was daily [God's] delight, rejoicing always before [God]....and [the Logos'] delight was with the sons of man." (Prov 8:30-31)

It is this one, God's faithful and true servant, that God caused to be incarnated, to be conceived in Mary, so that he would in all ways be as a man. This one, who before time, had the power and glory of God bestowed on him, who in the eyes of man is the exact image of God, was made into the likeness of men, and was obedient unto death. (Phil 2:6-8; Heb 1:3). And so, the love of God was made manifest towards us, in that he sent his true earthly Son conceived in a woman, his only begotten Son, into the world that we might live through him (1 Jn 4:9)

A.John says "know you the spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God". He who denies this is of the anti-Christ! (1 Jn 4:2-3) Jesus was more than a mere man, he was born a perfect man!

And as Crusader rightly says how would one man win salvation to ALL men. If we look in Hebrews we have the answer. Hebrews 7... HIS sacrifice was an EVERLASTING sacrifice.Crusader seems to have adopted a very Muslim, Jewish viewpoint. These reject the idea of original sin and as a consequence the change in man's nature for the worst, inherited by all. The scriptures reason, that one man's sacrifice won salvation for all mankind because it was a perfect! A sinless sacrifice acceptable to God and because it has been accepted by God, it is everlasting! See Hebrews chapter 9.

How is that possible for a mere man??1 Peter 1:19-21 "But the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God."

Also You will find it hard to explain Hebrews 1:4-8 where YHWH ( the Father ) makes it CLEAR that the Son is GOD.Consider Heb 1:9: it is obvious he whom God addresses in vs8 has a God - "God thy God has annointed you". Also consider Heb 2:9-10 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory"

You always seem to have trouble differentiating ESSENCE from POSITION.Note my use of father above...it did not denote ESSENCE but POSITION!!! And your argument from Isaiah is silly because you always take the words "first born" and take it to mean first created...If that is truely the case.A.Paul says "the things of God knoweth no may" (1 Cor 2:11), so doctrines such as the trinity, modalism and the like are speculative at best. As is the title "God the Son" which is not found in scripture. In the KJV there are a couple of disputed translations you might appeal to but A.Paul's letter to the Ephesians defines who is God most clearly. Here is a quick sample...

1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him.
3:14-15 I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ , Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.
4:4-6 There is...One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

If you are arguing from an orthodox or Nicene view, then there is little difference in our opinions regarding who is the only true God of himself=the Father. As for the Son our difference is whether he is generative of the the Father or the first thing made. The NT is silent on how the Son came to be. But in the OT there is Proverbs 8:22 where the KJV translates the Hebrew in what is a passive sense - possessed. However, the verb is active and is variously translated created or produced (NWT). However, you wish to read Prov 8:22, Wisdom, the Logos, came to be, via an activity of the Father.

Is the Son of the same substance as the Father? Again the scriptures are silent. All heavenly creatures are Spirit, so if that is God's substance then all heavenly creatures are as the Son, of the same substance as God. Are all in heaven God?

Is the Son of the same nature as God? In many ways we must conclude he is, at least to the extent permitted by the Father. After all, A.Paul tells us, he is the express image of the Father and it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell. And A.Paul also tells us, that we too might receive the same: "know the love of Christ, which passes knowledge, that you might be filled with all the fullness of God.(Eph 3:19) Will we become God? Partakers in the divine nature maybe! (2 Pe 1:4)

Is the Son of the same essence as God? I think so. For God is Love! A.John tells us "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God, and everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love." (1 Jn 4:7-8).

Does the Son hold second position in glory? Undoubtedly! In these times, God has subjected all things (excluding himself) to the Son. But only for a time. And when all things have been subdued to [the Son], then shall the Son also himself be subject until him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all" (1 Cor 15:27-28).

Just a thought in regards to Jesus being Michale. Jesus says that Moses wrote of him... Where in the bible did Moses ever write of Michael?Ex 3:2 "the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush" (also Gen 16:7; 21:17 to name a couple).

Look at Luke 24:27 How is this possible?!?John 15:18-21.
"All these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me."

Jesus said: "I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43), "[Father,] I have manifested your name unto the men whom you gave

Oldmonk

January 31st 2006, 04:56 PM

speculative is an understatement on both of your points. Just look at Moses' use of the echad (the Bibilical Moses that is) and it's obvious echad had no special multipersonal meaning. Moses used echad constantly on many items that have no sense of plurality. In fact, he only used yachid ONE time in Deuteronomy while using echad 20 times. So much for the argument that he chose to use echad to suggest a trinity.

You are in ERROR. A casual look at the Hebrew bible shows you that Genesis 2:24 ( And it is EXACTLY the same form of the word in Deut 6:4) that echad here means MORE than ONE... Unless you think a woman takes over the right side of the body and the man the left....may be opposite for JW types!!)TOTALLY REDICULOUS to say otherwise.... So exactly WHERE did you refute my arguments??? In your faulty memory??? You like to laugh at our questions because you cannot see past the watchtower glasses you wear. It is not Christians that have to have wierd and silly arguments to say the bible doesn't say what it CLEARLY DOES... [ How about adding the word "other 4 times into a verse to make it fit your theology when what it says is perfectly correct without those addidions... Like I couldn't do that to "Mary had a little Lamb" and make it more biblical than your bible!!!] or twisting word meanings and forcing them to fit your preconcieved theology... [ I refer to the inane notion that the Watchtower perpetrates as truth in "Isaiah's Prophecy " Vol. 1
page 130-131. Or how about the "Scream ... don't scream...oh YES scream" flip flop flip like a landed fish advice the Watchtower gives to women being sexually attacked... Or the GREAT one that said that the parable of the "Mustard seed " was about Satan's kingdom!!! That was truth for a week or so. What does the Bible say about this kind of shoddy theology... "A double minded person is unstable in all his ways" " They wrestle the scriptures to their own destruction". " True there was SOME disapointment among the brethren concerning the years 1914,1925...." Right from your OWN magazine...They deny that NOW of course!!! Fortunately I have the OLD light that they WISH would just disapear because it brands them false prophits by their own words! Technically speaking Jehovah , if you care to look in any reliable encyclopedia is not a name at all!! The Jewish laugh at your use of the name that isn't Hebrew, Greek, Swahili or any other language. It is the error of not knowing Jewish custom. That they put the vowel points of Adoni under YHWH so that those that know would speak adoni instead of pronouncing the divine name... This goes a way back and it is actually in the talmud. No wonder the Watchtower has so many pagan practices when they get part of their theology from guys like Johannas Greber.

Oldmonk

January 31st 2006, 05:12 PM

Hi OldMonk,

I acknowledge the intention in your conversation with Topherlee, but feel you have fallen into the JW trap of biblical semantics. If I may illustrate by giving a WTS type response to part of your post #52, guided by the WTS publications "Reasoning from the Scriptures" and "Insight on the Scriptures".

Below is an attempt to illustrate the type of argument a mature JW would present. The WTS in times past encouraged that in the preaching work, the first attainment is to find agreement and then present a contra argument in an agreeable fashion and within a scriptural context. If nothing else, it gives a feel to the reasonableness of the WTS arguement. I'll leave it to you to find the suble flaws...

Very true! Rom 3:23, which you quote, defines those who find justification through human works and if we read vs24 & 25 we find men justified by faith who elsewhere it is said, in the end times, will receive glory, with every man perfect in Christ Jesus.

"[We are] justified freely by [God's] grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in [Jesus'] blood." (Rom 3:24-25)

"Christ in you, the hope of glory; Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." (Col 1:27-28 cp:3:4)

Did Jesus attempt to redeem himself through works? Was he baptised by John, to show repentence for his own sins? The scriptures say Jesus was born sinless and remained sinless. And he did so, so that the Father would be made manifest to all mankind. As believers we are encouraged to imitate him.

To us he proved that a man by faith can remain sinless by aligning his will with the Father's, and receive the glory of God (cp: Jn 17:22).

Jesus, was truely man, but moreso, he was born a perfect man and the scriptures say that unless you believe God has raised [the Lord Jesus] from the dead you will not be saved (Rom 10:9).

Though all men by nature fall short of the glory of God, those that put on Christ can attain it! And how much more perfect is the one whom God caused to be born unto mankind.

A.Paul calls Jesus the second Adam, a man begotten of the Father, a man who remained sinless.

Did Jesus remain sinless? Was he, as the son of man, the one perfect sacrifice acceptable to God for the redemption of all mankind? The scriptures say so, apostolic tradition says so!

Was it neccessary for God to die for our sins or a man? The scriptures say it was neccessary for a man to die! For through one man made perfectly, sin had entered into the world, and through another made perfectly, sin has been forgiven by God.

However, Jesus was more than just a an ordinary man conceived in the usual way. The scriptures tell us that he existed before all things, and it was through him that all things were made. In times past as the Logos, the wisdom and power, through which God is made manifest, he "was by [God], as one brought up with [God], and was daily [God's] delight, rejoicing always before [God]....and [the Logos'] delight was with the sons of man." (Prov 8:30-31)

It is this one, God's faithful and true servant, that God caused to be incarnated, to be conceived in Mary, so that he would in all ways be as a man. This one, who before time, had the power and glory of God bestowed on him, who in the eyes of man is the exact image of God, was made into the likeness of men, and was obedient unto death. (Phil 2:6-8; Heb 1:3). And so, the love of God was made manifest towards us, in that he sent his true earthly Son conceived in a woman, his only begotten Son, into the world that we might live through him (1 Jn 4:9)

A.John says "know you the spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God". He who denies this is of the anti-Christ! (1 Jn 4:2-3) Jesus was more than a mere man, he was born a perfect man!

Crusader seems to have adopted a very Muslim, Jewish viewpoint. These reject the idea of original sin and as a consequence the change in man's nature for the worst, inherited by all. The scriptures reason, that one man's sacrifice won salvation for all mankind because it was a perfect! A sinless sacrifice acceptable to God and because it has been accepted by God, it is everlasting! See Hebrews chapter 9.

1 Peter 1:19-21 "But the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God."

Consider Heb 1:9: it is obvious he whom God addresses in vs8 has a God - "God thy God has annointed you". Also consider Heb 2:9-10 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory"

A.Paul says "the things of God knoweth no may" (1 Cor 2:11), so doctrines such as the trinity, modalism and the like are speculative at best. As is the title "God the Son" which is not found in scripture. In the KJV there are a couple of disputed translations you might appeal to but A.Paul's letter to the Ephesians defines who is God most clearly. Here is a quick sample...

1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him.
3:14-15 I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ , Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.
4:4-6 There is...One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

If you are arguing from an orthodox or Nicene view, then there is little difference in our opinions regarding who is the only true God of himself=the Father. As for the Son our difference is whether he is generative of the the Father or the first thing made. The NT is silent on how the Son came to be. But in the OT there is Proverbs 8:22 where the KJV translates the Hebrew in what is a passive sense - possessed. However, the verb is active and is variously translated created or produced (NWT). However, you wish to read Prov 8:22, Wisdom, the Logos, came to be, via an activity of the Father.

Is the Son of the same substance as the Father? Again the scriptures are silent. All heavenly creatures are Spirit, so if that is God's substance then all heavenly creatures are as the Son, of the same substance as God. Are all in heaven God?

Is the Son of the same nature as God? In many ways we must conclude he is, at least to the extent permitted by the Father. After all, A.Paul tells us, he is the express image of the Father and it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell. And A.Paul also tells us, that we too might receive the same: "know the love of Christ, which passes knowledge, that you might be filled with all the fullness of God.(Eph 3:19) Will we become God? Partakers in the divine nature maybe! (2 Pe 1:4)

Is the Son of the same essence as God? I think so. For God is Love! A.John tells us "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God, and everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love." (1 Jn 4:7-8).

Does the Son hold second position in glory? Undoubtedly! In these times, God has subjected all things (excluding himself) to the Son. But only for a time. And when all things have been subdued to [the Son], then shall the Son also himself be subject until him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all" (1 Cor 15:27-28).

Ex 3:2 "the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush" (also Gen 16:7; 21:17 to name a couple).

John 15:18-21.
"All these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me."

Jesus said: "I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43), "[Father,] I have manifested your name unto the men whom you gave

I thank you for your thoughts. I however do not see things quite that way. Let me explain my view a little clearer to you...
Concerning the sacrifice of Jesus. The priests were cocecrated to God and were considered to be God's thus Holy. Even with that concecration ie. God given Holiness they had to sacrifice for themselves before sacrificing for the people. They then each year had to repeat the same thing year after year. Now the Bible talks of sin even in the womb!! That means that we are born into sin...so if Jesus is JUST a man then he has a sin debt by nature. My point is that HIS blood stands for ALL TIME to be the remedy for sin. That is sins past present and those that are yet to be commited. My question is how is it that an ORDINARY mans blood could cover ALL sin past, present, and future, when the blood of the sacrifices couldent do it for even a year... there were many sacrifices between days of atonement. It seems to me that the nature of his blood was diferent...ie lasts forever before God...ie ETERNAL. Now if Jesus has ETERNAL BLOOD then what does that say of His NATURE???
Crusader and I have much simular viewpoints. I have studied hard and searched the Jewish literature to more fully understand the Old testament texts. I think to divorce the christian faith from its OT ties is dangerous and leads to eror. I will again explain my view to anything you care to ask about. I am running out of time here tonight though

Oldmonk

January 31st 2006, 05:30 PM

Man sinned against God. God did not need to atone himself for our sins. He needed a man to atone for our sins. This is why Jesus is referred to a the "last Adam". Adam was the first man who sinned and Jesus, as fully man, atoned for our sins. This was his purpose given to him by God.

Verse 21 is clear to what Jesus is speaking of. He is not speaking of himself, that he will raise his physical body, but the body that is of the church. The body of Jesus is used as a metaphor regarding the church.
John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Acts Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

The bible is clear that this can Jesus do by the authority given to him by God. After all, he is our Lord.
Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

The keyword is given; God gave authority to Jesus to do these things.

Okay, I will hold you to that same terminology and practical wisdom. If I become a father, that means I would have to produce a son, generate, beget. Only then can I be a father to my son. This is what it means to be a father.
Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen (Rev 3:14 Jesus is also a witness): that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Jesus is the beginning of creation of GOd;
Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Jesus is in not doubt the image of the invisible God; but he is not God. He is the image.
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

These verses and practical wisdom show that Jesus is a creation of God. Please understand what it is to become a father. He is the firstborn of every creature.

Being greater than is being greater than better if you will. Being God Almighty is being Greater than anything. If Jesus is given authoriy from God, he cannot be the Almighty God Jehovah.

Jesus is God's son through creation; Jesus is our brother, our Lord, only through him can you find God our Father.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

How is it that God can have a God when there is only one? The bible does not speak of in essence.
1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

So you are sayng that the atonement could have been affected by ANY sinless man... thus the fact that Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN of God is rather inmatterial?!? That the whole Virgin birth was UNNESESSARY?!?NO!!!!
Jesus was the ONLY sacrifice that God would accept for the sins of man!!Why? Because He was the only thing that could remove the unpayable debt man made with his sin... Man couldn't help himself so God had to help him!
Why do you call Jesus the "First Adam" and yet "a god" as well??? Are you saying as the Mormons do that Adam was God??? WAS JESUS "a god"? Yes or no??? If yes then He has to be a false god... if no then why do you think John called him so??? God could not have created him "a god" because of many verses in Isaiah... so How IS Jesus "a god"??? Are you going to site a scribal error to this verse??

Oldmonk

January 31st 2006, 06:01 PM

Hi Oldmonk,

This is an incredible claim!

Please read Alam's post #58 .

Oldmonk, the Hebrew for the number or numeral "one" is echad(1), shenayim is "two"(2), shalosh is "three"(3), arba is "four"(4),etc. Had the Jews not used "echad" for God, it would be like us not using the English "one"(1) to describe the one God. Had the bible used yachid instead you would probably charge it for not using the everyday Hebrew word for "one"(echad) to describe God! By any grammatical standard, in Hebrew, and certainly in English, any plurality of an noun which is either modified by an adjective or an indefinite pronoun, comes from the definition of the noun being modified, rather than from another modifier.

You forget my friend there are a couple of other words used biblically for "One". You also neglect the female forms of the numbers that must be used when dealing with femal gendered objects and subjects... In Hebrew gender determins the words used in association with them.

Infact it's the other way round. If Jesus is "God"(Yhwh), he becomes a false God because the bible says there is only one true God. Butif Jesus is "god"(Elohim) like Moses(Elohim) Ex7:1 and the Judges(Theoi) are in John 10:34,Ps.82, then there is no problem. If as you say, a creature called god is necessarily a false god, then God Himself was producing a false God in Exodus 7:1 when he called Moses "the God(Elohim) of Pharaoh" and God Himself was producing a false prophet when he designated Aaron Moses's prophet
No. Jesus is a prophet like Moses. You cannot say that Jesus is "a god" in John 1:1 and then say he isn't one!! If Jesus was created and according to John 1:1 ,in your OWN bible, is called "a god" then YHWH formed "a god" which was with Him before Abraham... "Before Abraham was I AM"...Thus Isaiah 43:10 would be false because when creating Jesus He would have formed "a god"!! Isaiah 44:8 would be wrong as well because then there WOULD be "a god" with YHWH...That would also make YHWH falable and thus not God himself!! Do you not see the logic???

Well then you have a problem. Let's look in Scripture, starting with the most famous messianic prophecy:

"For unto us a child is born .., and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty Almighty, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6

Where is the trinity? Did God forget that Jesus was not the Father but the Son? Remember the Athanasian creed says the persons are not to be confounded. If words meaning anything!

best wishes,

That is why the ONLY way that this verse can be seen is if Jesus is of the SAME ESSENCE as the Father. I have already stated that Jesus is NOT the Father BUT that he DOES share HIS ESSENCE with the Father Ie. LIKE ESSENCE and not PERSONAGE or POSSITION. That is what the creed is talking about. Though Jesus and the Father SHARE the SAME ONE DIVINE ESSENCE they are NOT the same PERSONAGES... You forgot the part that says "NOT dividing the SUBSTANCE [ie. ESSENCE] nor confounding the personages" LOOK at the Names AVI OD... Eternal Father... He is in his sharing of the fathers essence our father as well but he forgoes that to do the work of the cross { what Philippians 2 is talking about }. EL GABOR...Mighty God...also used of YHWH in Isaiah 10...SHAR SHALOM ... Prience of Peace.. Because of His work he brings peace to all that will heed his call.

NonTrinitarian

January 31st 2006, 06:04 PM

You are in ERROR. A casual look at the Hebrew bible shows you that Genesis 2:24 ( And it is EXACTLY the same form of the word in Deut 6:4) that echad here means MORE than ONE... Unless you think a woman takes over the right side of the body and the man the left....may be opposite for JW types!!)TOTALLY REDICULOUS to say otherwise.... So exactly WHERE did you refute my arguments???

You're too stupid to even deal with. I didn't refute your argument, Brian Holt did in his book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" Anthony Buzzard did in his book "The Trinity-Christianities Self-Inflicted Wound." I quoted them above. When I get some time I'll puruse some old stuff where Trinitarians say you're wrong on this verse. Then you can argue with your fellow Trinitarians if you want. You can explain to them why echad is used with singular items like a gate and a door. I'm done throwing pearls to swine.

alam

January 31st 2006, 09:43 PM

Hi NonTrinitarian,

This quote comes from the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" by Brian Holt:

"According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Moses wrote the word "one" 21 times in the book of Deuteronomy. Of those 21 times he wrote "one", 20 times he used the word echad...Some in these verses who are said to be "one" are various humans, a city and a gate. Does Moses' use of echad suggest he was trying to convey those he said were echad were multiple persons [or objects] in unity? The above verses show this is obviously not what Moses had in mind.

The arguement that Moses used echad for the special reason of supporting the trinity is pointless. Of course Moses used echad when he said God was one. He used echad nearly every other time he wanted to say the word "one"! In fact, 95% of the time Moses said "one", he used echad. The statisitcal data drawn from Deuteronomy does not support the theory that Moses' using echad in regard to God had any special significance. Since echad is about the only word for "one" Moses used in his writings, it would have been far more significant if Moses had not used echad in regard to God!

Anothony Buzzard and Charles Hunting discuss this Trinitarian argument as well. They point out that the sense of plurality comes from the collective noun, not the adjective "one." They state, "Echad is a numerical adjective and naturally enough is sometimes found modifying a collective noun-one family-one herd, one bunch. But we should observe carefully the sense of plurality resides int he compound noun and not in the word echad...It is subterfuge to transfer to "one" the plurality which belongs only to the following noun. It would be similar to saying "one" really means "one hundred" when it appears in the combination "one centipede".

A very good book! :thumb:

It's precisely arguments like these proposed by Trinitarians that make me both laugh and feel sorry for them at the same time. In fact, I have spoken to saveral Trinitarians, even some here at Tweb, that distance themselves from this idiotic argument. But, when you don't have much support for a three-headed God, you gotta drum up something. Even if it is subterfuge.

Fortunately you are right; not all have bought into this. The best antidote to the argument seems to be learning a little Hebrew, as most seminarians do, and seeing how Echad is used. Ignorance of the language among rank and file Trinitarians, coupled with confirmation bias, makes easy prey for the erroneous claim.

Pythagoras

January 31st 2006, 09:45 PM

Hi Oldmonk,

Let me try once more .

You forget my friend there are a couple of other words used biblically for "One".

Again, "echad" is the best word to describe God. Why? One main reason is because "echad" is the mathematical word for "1" in the Hebrew. Just as it would be unthinkable for me to use any other word but "1"("one") to describe the absolute, true God in the English language, it would be unthinkable for the Hebrews to use any other word , but "echad" to describe their One true God for it is the mathematically precise "one", as opposed to shenayim(2), shalosh(3), arba(4), etc. -- Rambam notwithstanding.

You also neglect the female forms of the numbers that must be used when dealing with femal gendered objects and subjects..In Hebrew gender determins the words used in association with them

You completely lost me here.

No. Jesus is a prophet like Moses. You cannot say Jesus is "a god" in john 1:1 and then say he isn't one.....

Please see the following:

Hebrew Transliterated
1:1 BUr'aShYTh BUr'a 'aLHYM 'aTh HShMYM V'aTh H'aUrTSh.

Darby's English Translation
1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Hebrew Transliterated
7:1 VY'aMUr YHVH 'aL-MShH Ur'aH NThThYK 'aLHYM LPhUr'yH V'aHUrN 'aChYK YHYH NBY'aK.

Darby's English Translation
7:1 And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Note that the exact word 'aLHYM is used both of God and of Moses. Using your logic,we would have to conclude Moses is either another God or a false God. Worse still, we would have to say God Himself is guilty of sanctioning either another God or a false God in Ex. 7:1. See how twisted your logic is? Just because an entity is called God in the bible does not render it a false God or another God.

That is the ONLY way that this word can be seen is if Jesus is of the SAME ESSENCE as the Father. I have already stated that Jesus is NOT the Father BUT that he deos share His ESSENCE with the Father..

That's precisely why Isa. 9:6 is so inimical to the trinitarian philosophy. You see Oldmonk, if Jesus shares the same essence as the Father and is distinct from the Father, then Isa. 9:6 makes sense only from the Sabellian, and not the trinitarian, point of view. Isa. 9:6 violates at least three statutes of the Athanasian Creed:

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

good luck and best wishes,

alam

January 31st 2006, 10:02 PM

Well, all you non-Trinitarians who believe that Constantine and the Nicene Council decided that Christ was God - what do you think about the most recent archeological discovery in Meggido, Israel? The 2nd century Christian Church was discovered by workmen doing excavations at a prison. It turns out that they uncovered a Pre-Constantine, Pre-Nicene Council Church. And the mosaics they discovered therein commemorate the donation of a communion table to the God, Jesus Christ:

(“Akeptus, the devout, dedicated the table to God, Jesus Christ, as a memorial”). The table was probably used to commemorate the Last Supper as a common-meal (communion) table."

Please note, this discovery at Meggido (or Megiddo) is probably the oldest Christian Church ever unearthed. And Jesus Christ is called God - this predating Constantine and the Council of Nicea! Further proof that the earliest Chritian churches believed in the Deity of Jesus Christ.

So much for 9/10 of your arguments against the Trinity!

It is good to find ancient Christians teaching the divinity of Christ, as they should have. Here's a link with the Greek. (http://aixtal.blogspot.com/2005/11/writing-nomina-sacra-under-prison.html)

However, as NonTrinitarian said, this discovery presents nothing theologically new, since Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 115) made similar statements. C.C. Richardson's comments on Ignatius' and early church fathers' christology shed light on the beliefs Akeptus might have had.

Christ was preexistent with (para) the Father (Mag. 6.1; cf. Pol. 3.2; and Eph. 7.2). He is now different from the Father (Eph. 21.2 and such frequent references as Mag. inscr. in which Christ and the Father are mentioned together). He is subordinate to the Father (Mag. 7.1; 13.2; Phil. 7.2; and Smyr. 8.1). The same distinction of honour exists between Christ and the Father as between presbyter and bishop (Mag. 2), or deacon and bishop (Tral. 3.1). Finally, the close moral union of sympathy and submission that exists between bishop and Christian is the characteristic way in which Ignatius thinks of God and Christ (Eph. 5.1). [p. 41]

If Ignatius be culpable of heresy it certainly verges more on subordination than on modalism or patripassianism. Therefore we must find the significance of the title [theos] for Christ, not in Ignatius' [supposed] modalistic theology, but in the loose use of the term in the second century.

The wide use of the terms qeoV and o qeoV in the popular Stoic circles of the second century has been discussed by Harnack (Hist. of Dogma, I, 119), and there is no need to repeat the citations. There is ample evidence to show that the two terms were interchangeable and could be referred to anyone from a distinguished official to the Lord God Almighty of the Hebrew tradition. All the "Lords" (kurioi) of the Greek cults were certainly "Gods" (qeoi), and Harnack even suggests that the former title was more august than the latter. Therefore when once Christ was called "Lord" (o kurioV)--even if it did originate as Burkitt suggests with the Aramaic Mari,--to the Gentile Christian there would be little difficulty in predicating him with "God" (o qeoV). [pp. 42-43].

We have already given reason to suppose that like most ante-Nicene writers tended far more toward the subordination of Christ than toward patripassianism. There is never a hint in his writing that Christ was in any way absorbed in God or confused with Him. He always stands in a place secondary and inferior to Him. Nevertheless, the Hebrew tradition of the unity of God did not escape Ignatius--it is perhaps purposely stressed in Mag. 8.2, against those who claimed that the Christians worshipped two Gods. God is one and has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. That is the very basis of the Christian conviction, and it must never be forgotten that the belief has its roots in an experience of fellowship and intimacy with Christ, not merely in assent to a theological proposition. When the early Christians found it necessary to consider the implications of this conviction they did not find it difficult to suppose that the God [i]qui est super omnia [Latin = "who is over all" Eph. 4:6] allowed his monarchy to be administered by the Son, who was dependent upon Him for immortality and a relative divinity. [pp. 44-45].

(Cyril Charles Richardson, The Christianity of Ignatius of Antioch, New York: AMS Press Inc., 1967)

So, before claiming the new discovery as evidence for Nicenism, one must consider whether Akeptus was calling Christ 'theos' with the meaning that Nicenes do. The ability to call Christ 'theos' was not confined to homousians. If you go to the fourth century you will find that many non-Nicenes and those from the dyohypostatic view, known as Arians, did so too.

Krusader

February 1st 2006, 12:20 PM

It is good to find ancient Christians teaching the divinity of Christ, as they should have. Here's a link with the Greek. (http://aixtal.blogspot.com/2005/11/writing-nomina-sacra-under-prison.html)

However, as NonTrinitarian said, this discovery presents nothing theologically new, since Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 115) made similar statements. C.C. Richardson's comments on Ignatius' and early church fathers' christology shed light on the beliefs Akeptus might have had.

Christ was preexistent with (para) the Father (Mag. 6.1; cf. Pol. 3.2; and Eph. 7.2). He is now different from the Father (Eph. 21.2 and such frequent references as Mag. inscr. in which Christ and the Father are mentioned together). He is subordinate to the Father (Mag. 7.1; 13.2; Phil. 7.2; and Smyr. 8.1). The same distinction of honour exists between Christ and the Father as between presbyter and bishop (Mag. 2), or deacon and bishop (Tral. 3.1). Finally, the close moral union of sympathy and submission that exists between bishop and Christian is the characteristic way in which Ignatius thinks of God and Christ (Eph. 5.1). [p. 41]

If Ignatius be culpable of heresy it certainly verges more on subordination than on modalism or patripassianism. Therefore we must find the significance of the title [theos] for Christ, not in Ignatius' [supposed] modalistic theology, but in the loose use of the term in the second century.

The wide use of the terms qeoV and o qeoV in the popular Stoic circles of the second century has been discussed by Harnack (Hist. of Dogma, I, 119), and there is no need to repeat the citations. There is ample evidence to show that the two terms were interchangeable and could be referred to anyone from a distinguished official to the Lord God Almighty of the Hebrew tradition. All the "Lords" (kurioi) of the Greek cults were certainly "Gods" (qeoi), and Harnack even suggests that the former title was more august than the latter. Therefore when once Christ was called "Lord" (o kurioV)--even if it did originate as Burkitt suggests with the Aramaic Mari,--to the Gentile Christian there would be little difficulty in predicating him with "God" (o qeoV). [pp. 42-43].

We have already given reason to suppose that like most ante-Nicene writers tended far more toward the subordination of Christ than toward patripassianism. There is never a hint in his writing that Christ was in any way absorbed in God or confused with Him. He always stands in a place secondary and inferior to Him. Nevertheless, the Hebrew tradition of the unity of God did not escape Ignatius--it is perhaps purposely stressed in Mag. 8.2, against those who claimed that the Christians worshipped two Gods. God is one and has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. That is the very basis of the Christian conviction, and it must never be forgotten that the belief has its roots in an experience of fellowship and intimacy with Christ, not merely in assent to a theological proposition. When the early Christians found it necessary to consider the implications of this conviction they did not find it difficult to suppose that the God [i]qui est super omnia [Latin = "who is over all" Eph. 4:6] allowed his monarchy to be administered by the Son, who was dependent upon Him for immortality and a relative divinity. [pp. 44-45].

(Cyril Charles Richardson, The Christianity of Ignatius of Antioch, New York: AMS Press Inc., 1967)

So, before claiming the new discovery as evidence for Nicenism, one must consider whether Akeptus was calling Christ 'theos' with the meaning that Nicenes do. The ability to call Christ 'theos' was not confined to homousians. If you go to the fourth century you will find that many non-Nicenes and those from the dyohypostatic view, known as Arians, did so too.

Yes, I would basically agree with you. However, if you are at all familiar with Jehovah Witness literature, you'll note that they disclaim the fact that the Early Church fathers taught the deity of Christ, and in fact, toot the falsehood that Constantine created the doctrine.

Bill the Cat

February 1st 2006, 12:38 PM

A very good book! :thumb:

More like the same old-same old...

http://www.tektonics.org/books/buzzrvw01.html

Krusader

February 1st 2006, 01:14 PM

You're too stupid to even deal with. I didn't refute your argument, Brian Holt did in his book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" Anthony Buzzard did in his book "The Trinity-Christianities Self-Inflicted Wound." I quoted them above. When I get some time I'll puruse some old stuff where Trinitarians say you're wrong on this verse. Then you can argue with your fellow Trinitarians if you want. You can explain to them why echad is used with singular items like a gate and a door. I'm done throwing pearls to swine.

You know, Oldmonk was very polite to you, and look how you treated him. Learn that down at the Hall, did you?

NonTrinitarian

February 1st 2006, 02:51 PM

More like the same old-same old...

http://www.tektonics.org/books/buzzrvw01.html

Sorry Bill but that review was a bunch of hogwash. Couldn't say much against it so he takes up space talking about the print on it. Do you think ANY non-Trinitarian book lays out decent arguments? I think Murray Harris' Jesus as God is a good trinitarian book. Stuff by Robert Bowman and Robert Morey and such are an embarrasement to trinitarians but their are some good reads out their in the Trinitarian world.

NonTrinitarian

February 1st 2006, 02:53 PM

You know, Oldmonk was very polite to you, and look how you treated him. Learn that down at the Hall, did you?

Learned it from Jesus, you offspring of a viper.:lol:

Pythagoras

February 1st 2006, 04:44 PM

Hi Billy the Cat,

More like the same old-same old...

http://www.tektonics.org/books/buzzrvw01.html

That book review is not objective. Why? Because it's furnished by the trinitarian apologist, Jp holding. Maybe he goes after the book with zeal (three thumbs down) because it hits too close to home ?

In any case, I found the following comment to be interesting:

It won't take a logician to see a certain premise missing from the middle: 1.5) "One" equals to "one person" -- not one something else (as in, "one Being of composite nature"),

Why isn't it true and logical to assert that "one equals one person" and not "one something else" ? There is absolutely no evidence at all from either the bible or from the observable Universe that 3 is 1, or that 3 persons are, or can be 1 being (Perhaps in an alternate Universe, a fairy Universe like Narnia, such things are possible, but not in the real world).

We know from common sense and the bible that every person is also a being, and every being a person. That's the idea of "1" consistently presented everywhere in the bible, so that the bible says Moses is one person, one being, Jacob another person another being, so that one flock of sheep is many individual sheep gathered together into one fold, etc..

The words "person" and "being" are equivocated in the trinitarian format, but logic exposes the equivocation.
The basic premises of the Athanasian creed regarding the "composite nature of God" are illogical unfortunately, violating the law of non-contradiction.

Consider:

(A)The Father is God
(B)The Son is God
(C)The Holy Spirit is God
(D) Yet there are not 3 Gods but 1 God.

The law of non-contradiction demands that (D) is false in light of (A), (B) and (C) above. The only way out is to assert 3 is 1 or to assert that 3 distinct persons/objects/things, (A), (B), (C) are yet 1 . But this leads to another logical contradiction:

(A) 3 is 1
(B) 3 is not 1.

The law of non-contradiction demands that either (A) or (B) above is true, and never (A) and (B) above at the same time.

best wishes,

Krusader

February 1st 2006, 06:27 PM

Learned it from Jesus, you offspring of a viper.:lol:

Oh, that's right - you learned it from the Watchtower Jesus.

Topherlee

February 1st 2006, 07:30 PM

So you are sayng that the atonement could have been affected by ANY sinless man... thus the fact that Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN of God is rather inmatterial?!? That the whole Virgin birth was UNNESESSARY?!?NO!!!!
Jesus was the ONLY sacrifice that God would accept for the sins of man!!Why? Because He was the only thing that could remove the unpayable debt man made with his sin... Man couldn't help himself so God had to help him!
Why do you call Jesus the "First Adam" and yet "a god" as well??? Are you saying as the Mormons do that Adam was God??? WAS JESUS "a god"? Yes or no??? If yes then He has to be a false god... if no then why do you think John called him so??? God could not have created him "a god" because of many verses in Isaiah... so How IS Jesus "a god"??? Are you going to site a scribal error to this verse??

Only begotten does not mean he is God's only Son. We are all children of Jehovah God our Father. Angels are referred to as "sons of God". Only begotten refers to Jesus' uniqueness, one of a kind. Firstborn refers to Jesus being chosen among above the others. Jesus is the one who was "whom he hath appointed heir of all things" (Hebrews 1:2).

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

No, not any sinless man - listen. Someone worthy enough to inherit God's Kingdom.

apostoli

February 3rd 2006, 08:08 PM

Hi Topherlee,

Only begotten does not mean he is God's only Son. We are all children of Jehovah God our Father. Angels are referred to as "sons of God". Only begotten refers to Jesus' uniqueness, one of a kind. Firstborn refers to Jesus being chosen among above the others. Jesus is the one who was "whom he hath appointed heir of all things" (Hebrews 1:2).."by whom also he made the worlds" (Heb 1:2)

There is a major flaw in your argument "Firstborn refers to Jesus being chosen among above the others". According to A.Paul all things were created by the Lord Jesus Christ, and that includes angels and everything excluding himself and his Father (1 Cor 8:8-6; Col 1:16-19). The Logos was chosen before anything was created!

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:Indeed yes! As Israel was Jehovah's bride, we become Christ's bride, and are adopted as sons of God via Christ.

No, not any sinless man - listen. Someone worthy enough to inherit God's KingdomI disagree with both you and Oldmonk.

Col 1:16 made that a gaurantee "all things were created by him and for him." And this is why Jesus sacrifice was the one and only acceptable sacrifice.

God did not die for our sins but the Son of God was sent by his Father as a propitiary scarifice (Rom 3:25; 1 Jn 2:2, 4:9,12-14)

Topherlee

February 4th 2006, 10:36 PM

apostoli Hi Topherlee,

"by whom also he made the worlds" (Heb 1:2)

There is a major flaw in your argument "Firstborn refers to Jesus being chosen among above the others". According to A.Paul all things were created by the Lord Jesus Christ, and that includes angels and everything excluding himself and his Father (1 Cor 8:8-6; Col 1:16-19).

If you read the KJV of course it will appear as Christ is the creator of all things. Does this verse not appear redundant? Upon closer examination of this scripture alone, A.Paul is clear to point the difference between God our Father (John 20:17) and our Lord (brother John 20:17 ...but go to my brethren...) Jesus Christ. He does not refer to Jesus as God but as our Lord. How is it that we are a brother to our creator? Through Jesus and for Jesus were we created.
Go through your bible and see how many times God is mentioned as our or the Father. The bibel never says God the Son.

1 Cor 8:6-8 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

The Logos was chosen before anything was created!

The Logos was the first created; Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; It is there in black and white, Jesus was created by the Father. Did Jesus enternally exist? Yes. Did we eternally exist? Yes. Through Gods thoughts - Logos. Is this not what Logos means? Gods thoughts or speech.

Shadow Phoenix

February 4th 2006, 10:59 PM

If you read the KJV of course it will appear as Christ is the creator of all things. Does this verse not appear redundant? Upon closer examination of this scripture alone, A.Paul is clear to point the difference between God our Father (John 20:17) and our Lord (brother John 20:17 ...but go to my brethren...) Jesus Christ. He does not refer to Jesus as God but as our Lord. How is it that we are a brother to our creator? Through Jesus and for Jesus were we created.
Go through your bible and see how many times God is mentioned as our or the Father. The bibel never says God the Son.

Hi Topher. let's see if you actually answer me here unlike certain other threads. First off, A. Paul points out nothing in John 20:17. I hope you're referring to 1 Cor. 8 instead, but your point in John 20 is weak. How come Jesus didn't say "Our God" and "Our Father"?

Furthermore, God is defined in relational terms in the OT as the God of Israel or the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, yet in the NT, it's "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." God is defined in his relationship to Jesus as Father. Now, are you going to tell me if God has always been the Father or not?

And yes, the Bible never says "God the Son." I'm sorry, but is there supposed to be a point ot that? The Bible never uses the term "New Testament Scriptures either. I guess we shouldn't believe those.

1 Cor 8:6-8 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Topher. This is a remaking of the Shema in Christian language. Why would Paul include Christ in the Shema?

The Logos was the first created; Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; It is there in black and white, Jesus was created by the Father. Did Jesus enternally exist? Yes. Did we eternally exist? Yes. Through Gods thoughts - Logos. Is this not what Logos means? Gods thoughts or speech.

Actually, in black and white, in the beginning in John 1:1, the Word is already there! It is then through the Word that ALL things come into being. Tell me Topher. Did time come into existence through the logos?

Also, Rev. 3:14 can be translated accurately as saying that Christ is the origin of God's creation, which matches the prologue of John.

Looking forward to your answer.

apostoli

February 5th 2006, 12:20 AM

Hi All,

My motivation and intention is not to prove or disprove any teaching but rather to determine whether a particular teaching is "natural" to the message of scripture. Please consider the following in that spirit...

I've spent the last few days looking into the words yachid and echad. Here are some highlights...

Gesenius gives ten definitions of singular Echad...This quote comes from the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" by Brian Holt:A very good book!More like the same old-same old...
http://www.tektonics.org/books/buzzrvw01.html
Bill, have a look below to see what Tecktonics actually says regarding "echad". Basically, it is admitted that the understanding of "composite unity" is speculative, a possibility - not an emphatic. Hence, the type of thing A.Paul regularly warns us to avoid (eg: 1 Cor 2:11; Titus 3:9; 2 Tim 2:23-24).

Let us look at the Hebrew "Shma y'srael YHWH elohenu YHWH ECHAD. The problem here is that the Hebrew word Echad is NOT an ABSOLUTE ONENESS but a COMPOUND ONENESS.Deut 6:4, must be read in its context, which is highlighted at Deut 6:1 and defined at Deut 4:35-39.

A point to keep in mind is Deut 6:4 does not say "the Lord" but as the Hebrew shows "YHWH our God is one YHWH". In the gospels, the God of the OT (YHWH), is identified by Jesus as his Father, the one who sent him. Compare Mark 12:29-34 "the scribe said...there is one God, and there is no other than he..And...Jesus...answered 'Thou art not far from the kingdom of God'" (nb: cp Mk 12:33 with Deut 6:5-7 for the pastoral message).

Understanding this elementary truth of scripture, shows that Deut 6:4 cannot be understood in any way other than as referring to a singularity of person. Unless of course one perceives "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory" as plural within himself (see below).

Of interest: the word "eis" is used at Mark 12:29, which is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew "echad" and which the scribe understood to mean as a numerical "one". (cp: eis usage at Eph 4:4-6 - nb: contrast gr=mono which is similar to heb=yachid).

Tecktonics Apologetic ministry in an article makes a comment you might find enlightening:

"We [Christians] do not hold that 'echad' must denote a compound unity. What we do believe, and can prove, is that the word 'echad' does not exclude the possiblity of a 'compound unity'."

A little earlier in the article the following points are noted...

Michael Brown [in his book "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus"] concedes in regard to the plural usage in the ANE:

"In the Ancient Near East, it was common to refer to the deity in the compound plural, and when speaking of an owner or master, it was often the rule to speak of him in such terms...

...Abraham's servant speaks to him in the plural in Genesis 24 ('adonim, literally, "lords"), Joseph speaks of Potiphar in the plural in Genesis 39, and David is referred to as "lords" in 1 Kings 1:11. More to the point, God speaks in Malachi 1:6, which reads: "If I am a Lords where is my honor?" Deuteronomy 10:17 refers to God as "the Gods of gods and the Lords of lords." In regards to pagan parallels to this in the ANE, Brown writes the following in an endnote:

See, e.g., 2 Kings 1:3, where Baal Zebub is called 'the god [Hebrew, 'elohim] of Ekron.' Note that in the Akkadian dialect attested in Tell El-Amarna, Egypt, the Pharaoh, who was considered divine, is literally called 'my gods'' cf. also Rykle Borger, 'Assyrisch-babylonishce Zeichenliste, Erganzungsheft zur 1. Auflage (AOAT 33)' (Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener, 1981), 417, who cites evidence that the Sumero-Akkadian plural form 'dingir-mes (meaning 'gods') can also have a singular meaning.) [Brown (1): 267-268, n. 17]]

However, Brown does goes on to note:

But before you conclude from all this that plural nouns for God have no bearing on the question of his unity, consider this simple truth: Hebrew, along with other Semitic languages, sometimes expressed greatness, supremacy, exaltation, majesty, and fullness by means of compound plural nouns. Plurality could express prominence, ownership, or divinity, all with reference to a single person or single deity. This means that the very concept of 'compound unity' or 'plurality in unity' was part of the language of the Tanakh. Such concepts would not be foreign to the biblical mind. So while these references to God or Lord in the plural do not in any way prove Trinitarian beliefs, they are certainly in perfect harmony with everything we are trying to say here, namely, that in some way the Lord's unity is complex. [Brown (1): 9-10]

Ant-Anti-Mission: A Response to some Jewish Objections to Christian Theology
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/antianti.html

Oldmonk, as you can see, the plurality of 'echad' and 'elohim' offer no real support for a concept of God in an Augustine/Aquinas definition of the trinity - on the other hand the orthodox understanding might find consolation in these scriptures. For instance: the body of Christ is made up of many members, but there is only one body and one Lord Jesus Christ and one God who is the Father of all (Eph 4:4-6).

It is of considerable interest that A.Paul used the greek word "eis" and not "mono" when he referred to "one"

None of the above discounts Jesus having the fullness of God (Col 1:19; 2:9) but I encourage you to think on "what God is" or more particularly "why we believe Jesus to be the true Son of God".

Gesenius gives ten definitions of singular Echad (אֶחָד). The seventh definition, the one with the thought of togetherness or compound unity, describes Echad with the prefix 'Kaph' (כְּאֶחָד). This literally translates, "like one" or "as one". The Shema does not say that YHWH is merely "as" one. As you can see, there is no Kaph prefix in Deuteronomy 6:4:

Something to note: Gesenius' fifth definition of Echad is "one only of its kind, Job 23:13; Ezekiel 7:5; Cant. 6:9." He makes a comparison to the Arabic cognate WaaHid (ﺪﺣﺍﻭ), which can mean "only one, incomparable."

In the past, Pythagoras and I have dealt at some length with the claim of Echad as a plurality and alleged instances supporting it.I had a read of last years posts. JPH's is interesting when viewed in the context of the link to his website cited about.

Just to add to the body of evidence: Strongs Lexicon gives 8 definitions for "echad". the BLB also gives the following counts of its usage in the KJV

AV - one 687, first 36, another 35, other 30, any 18, once 13,
eleven + 06240 13, every 10, certain 9, an 7, some 7,
misc. 87; 952

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1139004369-7428.htm

It seems clear to me that all scholars and translators view echad as used at Deut 6:4 as a numerical one - a singularity of person. Jewish commentators do acknowledge the term as one of inclusive plurality of attributes but cannot reconcile the word as relating to a plurality of person/s. Tecktonics, cites from Michael Brown seem to prove their point (see above). The following helps to explain the Hebrew viewpoint...

"Chassidic teaching explains that, on the contrary, echad represents a deeper unity than yachid. Yachid is a oneness that cannot tolerate plurality -- if another being or element is introduced into the equation, the yachid is no longer yachid. Echad, on the other hand, represents the fusion of diverse elements into an harmonious whole. The oneness of echad is not undermined by plurality; indeed, it employs plurality as the ingredients of unity. As one Chassidic thinker once put it, G-d did not have to create a world to be yachid. He was singularly and exclusively one before the world was created, and remains so after the fact. It was to express His echad-ness that He created the world, created man, granted him freedom of choice, and commanded him the Torah. He created existences that, at least in their own perception, are distinct of Him, and gave them the tools to bring their lives into utter harmony with His will. When a diverse and plural world chooses, by its own initiative, to unite with Him, the divine oneness assumes a new, deeper expression -- G-d is echad."

From the Chassidic Masters - Page 17
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:9TPpbNL1-KIJ:www.chabad.org/media/pdf/60496.pdf+echad+yachid&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=99

What has occured to me is "yachid" was once a term of exclusive uniqueness. However, the word "echad" is one of inclusion and I might suggest is better understood in the context of Deut 4:35-39; 6:20; 7:6-13 (ie: chapters 4 through 7). Aka: though God cannot be added to, we can add him to us - be as one with him. If he was "yachid" this would not be possible.

NB: According to Jewish commentators, in the time of Maimonides "yachid" had lost its original meaning, taking on the simple meaning of "only" or "unique". Not sure if this is just counter claim to Maimonides used the term to counter the claims of Christianity. I think the change in meaning of the word has validity. Otherwise, Maimonides would have got too much flack from his other Hebrew scholars. After all, the Jews are famous for their fractionism.

apostoli

February 5th 2006, 12:54 AM

Hi Topherlee,

The Logos was the first created; Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; It is there in black and white, Jesus was created by the Father.You know as well as I that Rev 3:14 is read literally by most. Which is a reading fully supported by the NWT interlinear's rendering of Col 1:16 - "oti en auto ektisthe ta panta" - "because in him it was created the all (things)"

Another point regarding Rev 3:14 "the faithful and true witness" cannot be a witness to something he hasn't seen. Therefore, the witness must precede creation. One cannot witness of one self it takes at least two (cp: Jn 8:17-18).

Your confederate Nontrinitarian says outright in one of his posts that the NWT doesn't always give the correct rendering of the original language (Titus 2:13 thread). Presume you are at odds with him. In any case the NWT insertion of [other] at Col 1:16 is not supported by the Greek as reference to the NWT interlinear readily highlights.

That aside: There is not a single scripture in the NT or OT that says Jesus was created by the Father. In fact the NWT says Jesus Christ is "the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father." (Jn 1:18)

Did Jesus enternally exist? Yes. Did we eternally exist? Yes. Through Gods thoughts - Logos.That is a modalist teaching not one from the faithful and discreet slave. Also, it implies that Jesus had no physical existence prior to his birth, which is contra to 1 Jn 4:2.

Suggest you have a read of the WTS publication "Insight on the scriptures" pages 52-53. Once you understand the WTS teaching you might be able to argue for it and substantiate your claim to be a JW. I have to presume you are a newbie.

Through Gods thoughts - Logos. Is this not what Logos means? Gods thoughts or speech.Logos does not mean thoughts or speech! Check any lexicon, the greek word is very complex - reason manifested is a close approximation. More particularly Logos refers to the message, doctrine or teaching for instance at John 12:48 we have "He who ignores me [sets me aside] and does not accept my words (gr: rheemata), has a judge: the logos I have spoken, that logos will judge him in the last day." Also, consider Jn 14:23-24 "If anyone love me, he will keep my logos...and the logos which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me."

Refer Gordon H. Clark, The Johannine Logos (1972), Chapter 3, Logos and Rheemata, page 41.

Also think on Jn:1:17-18 with Deut 6:1.

apostoli

February 5th 2006, 05:49 AM

Hi Topherlee,

I didn't have time to reply to all your points in post #88, so here is a completion to my post #91...

"by whom also he made the worlds" (Heb 1:2)

There is a major flaw in your argument "Firstborn refers to Jesus being chosen among above the others". According to A.Paul all things were created by the Lord Jesus Christ, and that includes angels and everything excluding himself and his Father (1 Cor 8:8-6; Col 1:16-19).If you read the KJV of course it will appear as Christ is the creator of all things.
Ok! Lets see what the NWT says....

1 Cor 8:6 "there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him, and there is one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things and we through him."

NB: "Out of whom" is an awkward translation as it insinuates pantheism. If you don't like the KJV rendering, possibly the NEB meets your approval "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all being comes, towards whom we move; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came to be, and we through him."

Col 1:16 "All [other] things have been created through him, and for him"
Col 1:17 "Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist"

NB: As reference to the NWT Interlinear (and the fact that the word is in square brackets) shows - the word "other" is an exegetical interpolation. If A.Paul had intended us to understand "other" we'd expect him to have stated so - as he does at 1 Cor 15:27 = "But when we say all things have been subjected, it is evident it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him". As a grammatical insertion "other" might be allowable as obviously the one that makes, is not a part of the thing made.

Heb 1:2&3 "through whom [God] made the system of things...and [Jesus] sustains all things by the word of his power..."

John 1:3 "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence"

We should have a quick look at the phrase khoris autos=apart from him. Have a look at Strong's lexicon and all the occurances of the word in scripture - it means "without him" not "excluding him" as you may want it.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/5/1139132574-1833.html

Doesn't matter which translation we use, all the cites have the same message: "All things, whether they be in heaven or earth were created by him" And obviously excludes the one doing the creating and the one who gave him such power.

Does this verse not appear redundant?Presume you mean the last clause of Heb 1:2. If one wanted to show Jesus' superiority to angels, showing him to be the one through whom all things were created, Heb 1:2 would do it. Remember, semitic people had a tradition of angel worship, the Jews may have picked up this tendency during the Babylonian exile (see: Jewish Encyclopedia or Catholic Encyclopedia)

Upon closer examination of this scripture [Jn 20:17] alone, [A.John] is clear to point the difference between God our Father (John 20:17) and our Lord (brother John 20:17 ...but go to my brethren...) Jesus Christ....How is it that we are a brother to our creator? Jesus is the disciples brother in three senses, as the Logos made flesh he is as brother in terms of his humanity (Jn 1:14), as one obedient to God's will he is a brother of those that do likewise (cp: Jn 15:18) and as he was no part of this world, he is brother with those who act likewise (Jn 15:19). In his humanity, Jesus becoming man "emptied himself" (NWT Phill 2:7).

You do highlight an often forgotten point, Jn 20:17 does not have Jesus calling God our Father. In his humanity he had done so previously, but now he was in a resurrected state, raised to glory. Notice: Ephesians 1:2 "May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ. Then in verse Eph 1:3 A.Paul says "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ for he has blessed us...in union with Christ." God is no longer our Father in a collective sense but by our adoption through Christ Eph 1:4-5. Nothing now happens without Christ!

He does not refer to Jesus as God but as our Lord.More particularly Kurios=master and owner. In the OT the Israelites were subservient to YHWH, in the NT all, whether they be in heaven or earth, are subservient to Jesus Christ, "and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father (NWT Phil 2:10-11 also cp: Phil 1:10-11).

Through Jesus and for Jesus were we created.How do you understand "for whom we have been created."

Go through your bible and see how many times God is mentioned as our [God] the Father.I encourage you do likewise. I'd suggest Jesus didn't come to preach your unknowable and approachable God but his Abba, and through him our Abba by adoption (cp Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6).

The bible never says God the Son.I agree. In the scriptures: Jesus is truely the Son of God, just as he is called truely the son of man. Was Jesus truely man? If so then...

But what is God? Think on the OT, isn't god merely a concept invented by men that YHWH contrasted himself? Moses' conception of God was one who had a direct interaction with Adam and those friendly toward him. (cp: 2 Chron 20:7)

1 Cor 8:6-8 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.Indeed yes. The Lord Jesus Christ is to whom we are commanded by the Father to bow our knees. A.John has Jesus saying he who rejects the Son, rejects the Father. And he is talking literally - Jesus is now our master and owner having purchased us with his blood.

alam

February 5th 2006, 08:34 PM

Hello Apostoli:

Bill, have a look below to see what Tecktonics actually says regarding "echad". Basically, it is admitted that the understanding of "composite unity" is speculative, a possibility - not an emphatic. Hence, the type of thing A.Paul regularly warns us to avoid (eg: 1 Cor 2:11; Titus 3:9; 2 Tim 2:23-24).

For it to be considered a possibility, there need to be potential instances. The supposed instances I have seen rely on the fallacy of reading plurality into Echad from the nouns it modifies. These only prove that Echad can modify a plurality which is grammatically singular, but even English 'one' does that: "one multitude." But in English we would not say "one horses" to mean several horses running together in unison, and neither would you ever say 'susim echad' in Hebrew.

Deut 6:4, must be read in its context, which is highlighted at Deut 6:1 and defined at Deut 4:35-39.

A point to keep in mind is Deut 6:4 does not say "the Lord" but as the Hebrew shows "YHWH our God is one YHWH". In the gospels, the God of the OT (YHWH), is identified by Jesus as his Father, the one who sent him. Compare Mark 12:29-34 "the scribe said...there is one God, and there is no other than he..And...Jesus...answered 'Thou art not far from the kingdom of God'" (nb: cp Mk 12:33 with Deut 6:5-7 for the pastoral message).

Understanding this elementary truth of scripture, shows that Deut 6:4 cannot be understood in any way other than as referring to a singularity of person. Unless of course one perceives "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory" as plural within himself (see below).

Excellent point. Non-trinitarianism does not leave one with the absolute divine simplicity concept of God by default. Some may be surprised that orthodox Islam does not conceive of God as completely singular and alone. They say he eternally co-exists with real, not virtual, attributes and an uncreated Koran. According to H.A. Wolfson (Philosophy of the Kalam), an early Muslim controversialist said that the difference between his beliefs and the Trinitarians was that they limited the attributes to three, whereas he and correligionists numbered them at fifteen, iirc, and did not call them 'God' individually.

Of interest: the word "eis" is used at Mark 12:29, which is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew "echad" and which the scribe understood to mean as a numerical "one". (cp: eis usage at Eph 4:4-6 - nb: contrast gr=mono which is similar to heb=yachid).

Tecktonics Apologetic ministry in an article makes a comment you might find enlightening:

"We [Christians] do not hold that 'echad' must denote a compound unity. What we do believe, and can prove, is that the word 'echad' does not exclude the possiblity of a 'compound unity'."

Of course. Echad does not rule out a compound unity when it happens to modify a collective singular noun.

A little earlier in the article the following points are noted...

Michael Brown [in his book "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus"] concedes in regard to the plural usage in the ANE:

"In the Ancient Near East, it was common to refer to the deity in the compound plural, and when speaking of an owner or master, it was often the rule to speak of him in such terms...

...Abraham's servant speaks to him in the plural in Genesis 24 ('adonim, literally, "lords"), Joseph speaks of Potiphar in the plural in Genesis 39, and David is referred to as "lords" in 1 Kings 1:11. More to the point, God speaks in Malachi 1:6, which reads: "If I am a Lords where is my honor?" Deuteronomy 10:17 refers to God as "the Gods of gods and the Lords of lords." In regards to pagan parallels to this in the ANE, Brown writes the following in an endnote:

See, e.g., 2 Kings 1:3, where Baal Zebub is called 'the god [Hebrew, 'elohim] of Ekron.' Note that in the Akkadian dialect attested in Tell El-Amarna, Egypt, the Pharaoh, who was considered divine, is literally called 'my gods'' cf. also Rykle Borger, 'Assyrisch-babylonishce Zeichenliste, Erganzungsheft zur 1. Auflage (AOAT 33)' (Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener, 1981), 417, who cites evidence that the Sumero-Akkadian plural form 'dingir-mes (meaning 'gods') can also have a singular meaning.) [Brown (1): 267-268, n. 17]]

Yes, in the El-Amarna letters Pharoah was called "ilania," my gods. This suggests an interesting dynamic in YHWH's setting of the Prophet Moshe, a stammering shepherd, as 'elohim' over Pharaoh.

However, Brown does goes on to note:

But before you conclude from all this that plural nouns for God have no bearing on the question of his unity, consider this simple truth: Hebrew, along with other Semitic languages, sometimes expressed greatness, supremacy, exaltation, majesty, and fullness by means of compound plural nouns. Plurality could express prominence, ownership, or divinity, all with reference to a single person or single deity. This means that the very concept of 'compound unity' or 'plurality in unity' was part of the language of the Tanakh. Such concepts would not be foreign to the biblical mind. So while these references to God or Lord in the plural do not in any way prove Trinitarian beliefs, they are certainly in perfect harmony with everything we are trying to say here, namely, that in some way the Lord's unity is complex. [Brown (1): 9-10]

It would not have been foreign to the biblical mind to conceive of God in anthropomorphic terms, having hands, eyes and breath, and seated on a throne above the heavens. The familiarity of the idea does not mean it was taken literally. In the case of a human being called 'adonim' or 'masters,' the ancients knew it was a figure of speech.

A common theme in intuitions of God's plurality is that there is some richness to God which cannot be conceived in terms of an absolute one. (Of course, to argue on this basis that an absolute one could not actually have that richness would be argumentum ad incredulum). Once this road is started down, of conceiving of the incomparable richness of God's life in terms of pluralities, where is the legitimate stopping point? If we believe God is infinite, it does not seem we could not stop anywhere short of infinity. And yes, it is true that even today, for ease of expression, we often speak of God’s infinity in quantitative terms, although no one (or almost no one) thinks that God is actually an infinite aggregate. The general view is that God is qualitatively infinite; but because this is difficult to conceive and talk about, we often slip into thinking and speaking in quantitative terms. There is nothing absurd about an absolute One being qualitatively infinite, nor about such a qualitative infinity being thought and spoken of, as an aid to human understanding, in quantitative, plural terms.

Gesenius gives ten definitions of singular Echad (אֶחָד). The seventh definition, the one with the thought of togetherness or compound unity, describes Echad with the prefix 'Kaph' (כְּאֶחָד). This literally translates, "like one" or "as one". The Shema does not say that YHWH is merely "as" one. As you can see, there is no Kaph prefix in Deuteronomy 6:4:

Something to note: Gesenius' fifth definition of Echad is "one only of its kind, Job 23:13; Ezekiel 7:5; Cant. 6:9." He makes a comparison to the Arabic cognate WaaHid (ﺪﺣﺍﻭ), which can mean "only one, incomparable."

In the past, Pythagoras and I have dealt at some length with the claim of Echad as a plurality and alleged instances supporting it.

I had a read of last years posts. JPH's is interesting when viewed in the context of the link to his website cited about.

Just to add to the body of evidence: Strongs Lexicon gives 8 definitions for "echad". the BLB also gives the following counts of its usage in the KJV

AV - one 687, first 36, another 35, other 30, any 18, once 13,
eleven + 06240 13, every 10, certain 9, an 7, some 7,
misc. 87; 952

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1139004369-7428.htm

It seems clear to me that all scholars and translators view echad as used at Deut 6:4 as a numerical one - a singularity of person. Jewish commentators do acknowledge the term as one of inclusive plurality of attributes but cannot reconcile the word as relating to a plurality of person/s. Tecktonics, cites from Michael Brown seem to prove their point (see above).

Echad does not grammatically or semantically bring any plurality, even an inclusive plurality of attributes, into the nouns it modifies. It just means "one" of whatever it modifies. But things have attributes that make them what they are, and so something in the quantity of "one" naturally includes its attributes. Whether or not God has real, subsisting attributes, as per Sunni Islam, is a theological issue, unrelated to the semantics of Echad afaict.

The following helps to explain the Hebrew viewpoint...

"Chassidic teaching explains that, on the contrary, echad represents a deeper unity than yachid. Yachid is a oneness that cannot tolerate plurality -- if another being or element is introduced into the equation, the yachid is no longer yachid. Echad, on the other hand, represents the fusion of diverse elements into an harmonious whole. The oneness of echad is not undermined by plurality; indeed, it employs plurality as the ingredients of unity. As one Chassidic thinker once put it, G-d did not have to create a world to be yachid. He was singularly and exclusively one before the world was created, and remains so after the fact. It was to express His echad-ness that He created the world, created man, granted him freedom of choice, and commanded him the Torah. He created existences that, at least in their own perception, are distinct of Him, and gave them the tools to bring their lives into utter harmony with His will. When a diverse and plural world chooses, by its own initiative, to unite with Him, the divine oneness assumes a new, deeper expression -- G-d is echad."

From the Chassidic Masters - Page 17
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:9TPpbNL1-KIJ:www.chabad.org/media/pdf/60496.pdf+echad+yachid&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=99

Nuances drawn out in Jewish mysticism do not speak to the level where confusion occurs in Deuteronomy 6:4, imho. It is a basic confusion about the Peshat-level significance of 'Echad' in context.

I can see where he is coming from in the above, in that Yachid means "single", which carries no implication beyond itself, whereas Echad is a numerical unit, and as such, is part of a continuum--a unity in relation to plurality. The Rabbi does not say that Echad itself is plural, but that it is a one which unifies pluralities; it is a one-for-many. I believe all philosophical monotheists agree that the world of many is in need of a one, and that this need is supplied by God. In no way does this necessitate that the one itself is many.

Also, as per Gesenius, Echad can also mean "one only of a kind" or unique.

What has occured to me is "yachid" was once a term of exclusive uniqueness.

In the Bible 'yachid' seems to have had negative connotations. It is used in the sense of "forlorn" or "dear," and also means "only-begotten," "only child." Imagine the heyday people would have if the Shema could be read that "YHWH is the only son"! :-S

In biblical Hebrew at least, Echad was the right word to use. Echad can have the meaning of "alone" or "exclusive uniqueness" cf. again Gesenius above. In Deut. 6:4 this is perhaps more likely than the numerical sense. A statement that YHWH is one YHWH in the numerical sense would be tautologous, because, as it has been somewhere remarked, anything is "one" inasmuch as it "is" at all. So, I think there is good reason to see the Shema as involving one of the other definitions of Echad, such as Gesenius' fifth definition.

However, the word "echad" is one of inclusion and I might suggest is better understood in the context of Deut 4:35-39; 6:20; 7:6-13 (ie: chapters 4 through 7). Aka: though God cannot be added to, we can add him to us - be as one with him. If he was "yachid" this would not be possible.

We have to be careful about defining 'echad' too sharply in opposition to 'yachid.' In biblical usage they have seem to have overlapped some, and yachid had connotations that would not have been suitable for God. Additionally, the Tanach does not use Echad in the looser way that the Gospel of John does in John 10:30 and chapter 17. In John, there seems to be an idiom whereby neuter hen can serve in a weaker sense to signify unity or at-oneness; this also appears in Paul. We do not know what this idiom might translate from Jesus' Aramaic.

NB: According to Jewish commentators, in the time of Maimonides "yachid" had lost its original meaning, taking on the simple meaning of "only" or "unique".

This sounds right.

Not sure if this is just counter claim to Maimonides used the term to counter the claims of Christianity. I think the change in meaning of the word has validity. Otherwise, Maimonides would have got too much flack from his other Hebrew scholars. After all, the Jews are famous for their fractionism.

Fractionism?? I think most religions have a bit to work on in that department... :-)

God bless,

Pythagoras

February 5th 2006, 11:58 PM

Hi apostoli,

Greetings in Christ.

A point to keep in mind is Deut 6:4 does not say "the Lord" but as the Hebrew shows "YHWH our God is one YHWH". In the gospels, the God of the OT (YHWH), is identified by Jesus as his Father, the one who sent him. Compare Mark 12:29-34 "the scribe said...there is one God, and there is no other than he..And...Jesus...answered 'Thou art not far from the kingdom of God'" (nb: cp Mk 12:33 with Deut 6:5-7 for the pastoral message).

Understanding this elementary truth of scripture, shows that Deut 6:4 cannot be understood in any way other than as referring to a singularity of person. Unless of course one perceives "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory" as plural within himself (see below).

This is an excellent observation. The only way out is to equivocate the word "God".

Of interest: the word "eis" is used at Mark 12:29, which is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew "echad" and which the scribe understood to mean as a numerical "one". (cp: eis usage at Eph 4:4-6 - nb: contrast gr=mono which is similar to heb=yachid).

Also of interest: the Septuahint LXX always translated the Hebrew word for God(Elohim) in the singular (Greek Theos).
It has been argued by some, and rightly so, that if Elohim in the OT proves a "compound unity" of God then the use of Eloha in places like Deut. 32:15-17 and Hab. 3:3 must of necessity disaprove it! Trin.'s can't have their cake and eat it too.

"In the Ancient Near East, it was common to refer to the deity in the compound plural, and when speaking of an owner or master, it was often the rule to speak of him in such terms...

Smith's Bible Dictionary, p. 220, in their article entitled "God" is instructive in this regard:

The plural form of Elohim has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful idea that it referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God (p. 220).

...Abraham's servant speaks to him in the plural in Genesis 24 ('adonim, literally, "lords"), Joseph speaks of Potiphar in the plural in Genesis 39, and David is referred to as "lords" in 1 Kings 1:11. More to the point, God speaks in Malachi 1:6, which reads: "If I am a Lords where is my honor?" Deuteronomy 10:17 refers to God as "the Gods of gods and the Lords of lords." In regards to pagan parallels to this in the ANE, Brown writes the following in an endnote:

Elohim is also used of single human figures. Moses in both Exodus 4:16 and 7:1 and the Messianic king in Psalms 45:6 (verse 7 in the Hebrew Bible) are each referred to as Elohim. Was Abraham 3 persons 1 being ? ...Not to forget Elohim is used of Dagon(1 Sam 5:7), of Chemosh (Jud. 11:24 etc), Ashtarte (1 Kings 11:33), etc. Were all these Deities "three persons in one being"?

Note that in the Akkadian dialect attested in Tell El-Amarna, Egypt, the Pharaoh, who was considered divine, is literally called 'my gods'' cf.

Yes, the word is ilania. Was Pharaoh a 3 in/is 1 being?

It is of considerable interest that A.Paul used the greek word "eis" and not "mono" when he referred to "one"

Good point.

What has occured to me is "yachid" was once a term of exclusive uniqueness. However, the word "echad" is one of inclusion and I might suggest is better understood in the context of Deut 4:35-39; 6:20; 7:6-13 (ie: chapters 4 through 7). Aka: though God cannot be added to, we can add him to us - be as one with him. If he was "yachid" this would not be possible.

Agreed. Point is that yachid is not the Hebrew numeral for "1", echad is, so it is inappropriate to use to to describe the "1" true God. Yachid also has negative connotations. It is found a grand total of about 12 times in the entire bible. -- desolate, lonely, isolated etc. Maimonadies out of weakness used it to describe the "1" true God in order to "silence" trinitarian objections to echad, but he did more harm than good unfortunately, giving trinitarians a perfect opening to suggest echad to not be the correct word to describe a non-compound one God.

It seems clear to me that all scholars and translators view echad as used at Deut 6:4 as a numerical one - a singularity of person.

Yes. "1", as opposed to "2", "3", "4", etc. Is there an intrinsic compound unity to the numeral "1"? Ofcourse not.

Pythagoras

February 6th 2006, 12:49 AM

Greetings alam,

In the Bible 'yachid' seems to have had negative connotations. It is used in the sense of "forlorn" or "dear," and also means "only-begotten," "only child." Imagine the heyday people would have if the Shema could be read that "YHWH is the only son"! :-S

This is a good observation. From what I've read, there is a neediness to all that yachid applies in the bible. Consider the following examples:

Psalm 68:6-7

"God sets the lonely in families, he leads forth the prisoners with singing; but the rebellious live in a sun-scorched land.."

Psalm 25:16,

"Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted. The troubles of my heart have multiplied;.."

Yachid is an inappropriate word to describe the "1" God.

For it to be considered a possibility, there need to be potential instances. The supposed instances I have seen rely on the fallacy of reading plurality into Echad from the nouns it modifies.

Alam, Deut. 17:6 proves you right. Consider: "On the testimony of two or three witnesses witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of of only one witness."

Now, if echad on it's own can imply a compound unity (i.e. three persons one being) then Deut. 17:6 is false, for it clearly states that no one shall be put to death on the testimony of one(echad) person.

Infact in this regard and taking a related verse of scripture from the NT, Jesus proves the trinity doctrine false in John 18:3:

"And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me."

Above Jesus is refering to Deut. 17:6. But please note carefully that Deut. 17:6 specifically allows for "the testimony of two or three persons ". But Jesus restricts himself to the testimony of only two persons! Here was the perfect opportunity to expound the trinity doctrine, an excellent chance to make mention of the three persons of the holy trinity. Yet Jesus purposely does not, he mentions only two persons -- himself and his Father. It is inconceievable that Jesus would have left out the testimony of the third person of the holy trinity. We should take a hint, especially from Jesus.

Peace in Christ,

Joe Gofish

February 6th 2006, 11:05 AM

Oh, that's right - you learned it from the Watchtower Jesus.
or maybe it was Chas Russell

Oldmonk

February 6th 2006, 04:10 PM

You're too stupid to even deal with. I didn't refute your argument, Brian Holt did in his book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" Anthony Buzzard did in his book "The Trinity-Christianities Self-Inflicted Wound." I quoted them above. When I get some time I'll puruse some old stuff where Trinitarians say you're wrong on this verse. Then you can argue with your fellow Trinitarians if you want. You can explain to them why echad is used with singular items like a gate and a door. I'm done throwing pearls to swine.

Let me guess JW's that regurgitate what Brooklyn says?!? Close I bet!!!!

Oldmonk

February 6th 2006, 04:13 PM

Only begotten does not mean he is God's only Son. We are all children of Jehovah God our Father. Angels are referred to as "sons of God". Only begotten refers to Jesus' uniqueness, one of a kind. Firstborn refers to Jesus being chosen among above the others. Jesus is the one who was "whom he hath appointed heir of all things" (Hebrews 1:2).

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

No, not any sinless man - listen. Someone worthy enough to inherit God's Kingdom.

You are RIGHT!!! BUT we are ADOPTED to the possition which Christ has by NATURE!!!

Oldmonk

February 6th 2006, 04:19 PM

Only begotten does not mean he is God's only Son. We are all children of Jehovah God our Father. Angels are referred to as "sons of God". Only begotten refers to Jesus' uniqueness, one of a kind. Firstborn refers to Jesus being chosen among above the others. Jesus is the one who was "whom he hath appointed heir of all things" (Hebrews 1:2).

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

No, not any sinless man - listen. Someone worthy enough to inherit God's Kingdom.

Listen to SCRIPTURE!!! " ALL [NO EXCEPTIONS] have sinned and fallen short . NONE do good NO NOT ONE!!!! NOBODY earns even the right to live! It is ONLY by GRACE !!!! That was the whole point of the law... to CONVICT under sin!!!

Oldmonk

February 6th 2006, 04:21 PM

Hi Topherlee,

"by whom also he made the worlds" (Heb 1:2)

There is a major flaw in your argument "Firstborn refers to Jesus being chosen among above the others". According to A.Paul all things were created by the Lord Jesus Christ, and that includes angels and everything excluding himself and his Father (1 Cor 8:8-6; Col 1:16-19). The Logos was chosen before anything was created!

Indeed yes! As Israel was Jehovah's bride, we become Christ's bride, and are adopted as sons of God via Christ.

I disagree with both you and Oldmonk.

Col 1:16 made that a gaurantee "all things were created by him and for him." And this is why Jesus sacrifice was the one and only acceptable sacrifice.

God did not die for our sins but the Son of God was sent by his Father as a propitiary scarifice (Rom 3:25; 1 Jn 2:2, 4:9,12-14)

I see it the same as you and am wondering just where you disagree with me???

Oldmonk

February 6th 2006, 04:25 PM

Sorry Bill but that review was a bunch of hogwash. Couldn't say much against it so he takes up space talking about the print on it. Do you think ANY non-Trinitarian book lays out decent arguments? I think Murray Harris' Jesus as God is a good trinitarian book. Stuff by Robert Bowman and Robert Morey and such are an embarrasement to trinitarians but their are some good reads out their in the Trinitarian world.

What is a BIG laugh is how the Watchtower explains the confession of Thomas....COME OFF IT!!! He was shocked and said "My LORD and My GOD". That may work with pre-schoolers for about two seconds!!! That is not mentioning that such a statment from one of Jewish background would have broken the 1st commandment!!

Oldmonk

February 6th 2006, 05:15 PM

aaaaaaHi Oldmonk,

Let me try once more .

Again, "echad" is the best word to describe God. Why? One main reason is because "echad" is the mathematical word for "1" in the Hebrew. Just as it would be unthinkable for me to use any other word but "1"("one") to describe the absolute, true God in the English language, it would be unthinkable for the Hebrews to use any other word , but "echad" to describe their One true God for it is the mathematically precise "one", as opposed to shenayim(2), shalosh(3), arba(4), etc. -- Rambam notwithstanding.

Then explain WHY RAMBAM...and we are talking about one of the sharpest and keenest minds of all Jewish thought here...did NOT use echad in his thirteen principles of faith..... OBVIOUSLY echad is not the ONLY word!!!!

You completely lost me here.

Please see the following:

Hebrew Transliterated
1:1 BUr'aShYTh BUr'a 'aLHYM 'aTh HShMYM V'aTh H'aUrTSh.

Darby's English Translation
1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Hebrew Transliterated
7:1 VY'aMUr YHVH 'aL-MShH Ur'aH NThThYK 'aLHYM LPhUr'yH V'aHUrN 'aChYK YHYH NBY'aK.

[
Note that the exact word 'aLHYM is used both of God and of Moses. Using your logic,we would have to conclude Moses is either another God or a false God. Worse still, we would have to say God Himself is guilty of sanctioning either another God or a false God in Ex. 7:1. See how twisted your logic is? Just because an entity is called God in the bible does not render it a false God or another God.

You are confusing POSITION and ESSENCE yet AGAIN!!! Yes Moses was LIKE a god to Pharoh.... ISAIAH however is NOT talking about POSSITION.... having authority over someone as Moses did with Pharoh BUT one of ESSENCE. Read the CONTEXT!!! He is talking about other god WITH him. He is talking in the context of ESSENCE. Now you have to decide if theos in John 1:1 that applies to Jesus is in reference to possition or ESSENCE. If just possition then how did he create ALL things... Again look in your KIT and see the Greek doesn't have " Other " in those verses but were put in by the Watchtower to make the verse say what they wanted it to...ie. the verses are quite alright without them . Even John 1:2 makes sence when you take those " others" out. Also note Isaiah 44:24. Now if YHWH says that he did something " ALONE " and then reitterates it and says " BY MYSELF" how many people were involved. Can you logically say you flew a solo flight with help??? NO SOLO means BY YOURSELF.... ALONE means there was NOT ANYONE ELSE HELPING AIDING OR DOING THE WORK FOR YOU!!! So if JESUS made ALL things and YHWH made ALL things then they MUST BOTH BE GOD!!!!!!!!! Not the same PERSONS... as in Saballianism....
Sabalias said that there was only ONE god and three offices... Ie YHWH becomes the Son, YHWH becomes the Father, YHWH becomes the Holy Spirit. This happens when YHWH acts as any of the above....ie. he changes to suit the office he is representing.That is FAR FAR away from trinitarian thinking!!!!
That is confusing the personages. When Jesus says that he will send the Holy Spirit the Greek uses a word that means "one of like nature"....proving that the Holy Spirit is a personage by the way. This shows that the Holy Spirit is of the same ESSENCE as Jesus and the Father. Also note that the Bible asks us to Honour the Son in the SAME manner as we honnor the Father and that those that fail to do so honour not the Father OR Son.... So if Jesus was just a perfect man then how does he rate the SAME HONOUR as YHWH?!?

That's precisely why Isa. 9:6 is so inimical to the trinitarian philosophy. You see Oldmonk, if Jesus shares the same essence as the Father and is distinct from the Father, then Isa. 9:6 makes sense only from the Sabellian, and not the trinitarian, point of view. Isa. 9:6 violates at least three statutes of the Athanasian Creed:

See above for my response to this part . I got carried away .
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

PRECISELY my position!!! Jesus is ONLY "Avi Od" because of ESSENCE. The ESSENCE is the Father , Son, and Holy Spirit BUT the personages are seperate! The Watchtower likes to set up straw men...ie. "three headed freekish god" and knock them down and say "look we have proven the trinity wrong" when their notions betray their ignorance of what the trinity is really all about. Eric Von Danikin couldn't have done a better job himself!!

good luck and best wishes,

NonTrinitarian

February 6th 2006, 05:20 PM

What is a BIG laugh is how the Watchtower explains the confession of Thomas....COME OFF IT!!! He was shocked and said "My LORD and My GOD". That may work with pre-schoolers for about two seconds!!! That is not mentioning that such a statment from one of Jewish background would have broken the 1st commandment!!

The JW position is that Thomas was addressing the Father as God and Jesus as Lord. Where do you get the idea Thomas was saying "Oh God" like someone does when they are scared or surprised?

Keepupthefire

February 6th 2006, 06:15 PM

Hi Crusader. I don't worship Michael, I worship the Father and Creator through the Name Jesus the Christ.
All I asked was for you to tell me who Michael is representing in revelation. Whoever the "messengers" are with him, they are overcoming the "dragon" and his "messengers" by reason of the blood of the Lamb and even unto death. Kind of goes along chapt 11 and the "2 witnesses"["Word of God/Testimony of Jesus]? in some ways.
Lots of OT symbology in revelation but for those who want to study on it more, I do have studies on it at the site in my signature, as I am trying to harmonize it and accurately translate. I could use some good Greek experts if there are any here.
What a fascinating Book!!!! God bless.

revelaton 12:7 And there came to be war in heaven: Michael and his messengers [going forth] to war with the dragon; and, the dragon, fought, and his messengers;10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying--Now, hath come the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ; because the accuser of our brethren hath been cast out, who was accusing them before our God day and night; 11 And, they, overcame him by reason of the blood of the Lamb, and by reason of their witnessing word, and they loved not their life, even unto death.

Daniel 12:1 And, at that time, will Michael, the great ruler who standeth for the sons of thy people, make a stand, and there will be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, up to that time,--and, at that time, shall thy people, be delivered, every one found written in the hook; 2 and, many of the sleepers in the dusty ground, shall awake,--these, [shall be] to age-abiding life, but, those, to reproach, and age-abiding abhorrence;

In context of Revelation 12:7 the messengers are revealed in the last part.

"because the accuser of our brethren hath been cast out, who was accusing them before our God day and night; 11 And, they, overcame him by reason of the blood of the Lamb, and by reason of their witnessing word, and they loved not their life, even unto death."

In context we see that Satan accuses the brethren the brethren overcome the accuser with the blood of the lamb. The only beings that have the capability to overcome by the reason of their witnessing word(notice witnessing), as well as, not loving life even unto death...can only be being that can die an witness to the truth.

The Saints with God's Angels defeat Satan.

Topherlee

February 6th 2006, 10:07 PM

Quote: Originally posted by apostoli

Hi Topherlee,

"by whom also he made the worlds" (Heb 1:2)

There is a major flaw in your argument "Firstborn refers to Jesus being chosen among above the others". According to A.Paul all things were created by the Lord Jesus Christ, and that includes angels and everything excluding himself and his Father (1 Cor 8:8-6; Col 1:16-19). The Logos was chosen before anything was created!

Indeed yes! As Israel was Jehovah's bride, we become Christ's bride, and are adopted as sons of God via Christ.

I disagree with both you and Oldmonk.

Col 1:16 made that a gaurantee "all things were created by him and for him." And this is why Jesus sacrifice was the one and only acceptable sacrifice.

God did not die for our sins but the Son of God was sent by his Father as a propitiary scarifice (Rom 3:25; 1 Jn 2:2, 4:9,12-14)

Oldmonk - I see it the same as you and am wondering just where you disagree with me???

You are right! Jesus as the Logos was chosen before anything was created. Then Jesus was created (Rev 3:14, Col 1:15).
Jesus was the beginning of creation of God and the firstborn of every creature. Jesus pre-existed as a thought (logos) - the word. You make the logos a spiritual or physical thing. When it simply means Gods thought or speech.

Jesus is the Rev 22:16 ...bright morning star. Above the others Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together.... These are the words of Jesus himself.

MichaelCadry

February 6th 2006, 10:17 PM

Dear All,

How can you even think that the Archangel and Guardian Angel Michael could fill the shoes or sandals of Jesus's feet?? Jesus is more than the Archangel Michael. We are told that Jesus shall have dominion over all of the angels and people on earth.

The angel that guides me is the Archangel Michael, and is my namesake, but for those things that he needs helping with, Jesus, and if necessary, God and the Holy Spirit step in. Heaven is almost somewhat like a corporation. If one of the lesser cannot figure out the answer or problem, then they are helped by someone who can help.

The archangel Michael is quite strong and close to God indeed, but God's Son Jesus is closer to God besides, so don't sit and wonder.

Much Love and Kindness To You All,

MichaelCadry

Pythagoras

February 6th 2006, 10:19 PM

Hi Oldmonk,

Unfortunately you're now introducing 4th century trinitarian vocabulary into the discussion. There is no evidence whatsoever from scripture to suggest that Jesus is of the "same essence as God and therefore God". This is wishful thinking.

Also you'have not even begun to address the question of why Isa. 9:6 refers to Jesus as the Father, violating the trinity doctrine left, right and centre.

Keep fooling yourself....

best wishes,

Shadow Phoenix

February 6th 2006, 10:27 PM

You are right! Jesus as the Logos was chosen before anything was created. Then Jesus was created (Rev 3:14, Col 1:15).
Jesus was the beginning of creation of God and the firstborn of every creature. Jesus pre-existed as a thought (logos) - the word. You make the logos a spiritual or physical thing. When it simply means Gods thought or speech.

Jesus is the Rev 22:16 ...bright morning star. Above the others Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together.... These are the words of Jesus himself.

Excuse me Topher. You say Jesus is the firstborn of every creature.

Just answer me some simple questions.

Did the firstborn of Abraham come before Abraham or after?
Did the firstborn of Isaac come before or after?
Jacob?
Joseph?
Moses?
David?

NonTrinitarian

February 6th 2006, 10:39 PM

Excuse me Topher. You say Jesus is the firstborn of every creature.

Just answer me some simple questions.

Did the firstborn of Abraham come before Abraham or after?
Did the firstborn of Isaac come before or after?
Jacob?
Joseph?
Moses?
David?

Yeah ! Good argument Nick! Hey Topher, while you're answering that one, answer this one too.
Did the firstborn of God come before God or after?

Pythagoras

February 6th 2006, 10:39 PM

Hi Michael,

Dear All,

How can you even think that the Archangel and Guardian Angel Michael could fill the shoes or sandals of Jesus's feet?? Jesus is more than the Archangel Michael. We are told that Jesus shall have dominion over all of the angels and people on earth.

The angel that guides me is the Archangel Michael, and is my namesake, but for those things that he needs helping with, Jesus, and if necessary, God and the Holy Spirit step in. Heaven is almost somewhat like a corporation. If one of the lesser cannot figure out the answer or problem, then they are helped by someone who can help.

The archangel Michael is quite strong and close to God indeed, but God's Son Jesus is closer to God besides, so don't sit and wonder.

Much Love and Kindness To You All,

MichaelCadry

By the same token, how can you even think that Jesus, a man who died and was raised by God, is Almighty God! In my opinion, it is infinitely more ridiculous to suggest Jesus is Almighty God than to think him Michael the arch-Angel. I would sooner believe Jesus a baked potato.

best wishes,

NonTrinitarian

February 6th 2006, 10:45 PM

Dear All,

How can you even think that the Archangel and Guardian Angel Michael could fill the shoes or sandals of Jesus's feet?? Jesus is more than the Archangel Michael. We are told that Jesus shall have dominion over all of the angels and people on earth. {/quote]
Michael the archangel (literally chief of the angels) has dominion over all the angels so we're in agreement.

[quote]
The angel that guides me is the Archangel Michael, and is my namesake, but for those things that he needs helping with, Jesus, and if necessary, God and the Holy Spirit step in.
"Jesus, and if necessary, God and the Holy Spirit step in." If necessary? Don't you think that Jesus is God? So how would it ever be necessary for God (who is Jesus, right?) to step in and have to help Jesus?

The archangel Michael is quite strong and close to God indeed, but God's Son Jesus is closer to God besides, so don't sit and wonder.
By "God" you mean who/What?

Pythagoras

February 6th 2006, 11:05 PM

[QUOTE=MichaelCadry]Dear All,

"Jesus, and if necessary, God and the Holy Spirit step in." If necessary? Don't you think that Jesus is God? So how would it ever be necessary for God (who is Jesus, right?) to step in and have to help Jesus?

By "God" you mean who/What?

Interesting question.

A fair minded person would have to conclude that trinitarianism is polytheism in all but name only. -- the three persons , each fully God , talk to each other, work together, conduct their spearate affairs in complete harmony with each other, etc..

best wishes,

Shadow Phoenix

February 6th 2006, 11:11 PM

Yeah ! Good argument Nick! Hey Topher, while you're answering that one, answer this one too.
Did the firstborn of God come before God or after?

Text please?

alam

February 6th 2006, 11:54 PM

Greetings Pythagoras;

This is a good observation. From what I've read, there is a neediness to all that yachid applies in the bible. Consider the following examples:

Psalm 68:6-7

"God sets the lonely in families, he leads forth the prisoners with singing; but the rebellious live in a sun-scorched land.."

Psalm 25:16,

"Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted. The troubles of my heart have multiplied;.."

This is very true. I am unaware of a place in the Tanak where Yachid means "single" or "only" without an additional connotation of dubious applicability to the divine. The primary thought of the word does not seem to have been unity as such.

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only [son] (אֶת־בִּנְךָ אֶת־יְחִידְךָ) Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

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] (אֶת־בִּנְךָ אֶת־יְחִידְךָ) from me.

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] (אֶת־בִּנְךָ אֶת־יְחִידְךָ)...

And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she [was his] only child (יְחִידָה); beside her he had neither son nor daughter.

O daughter of my people, gird [thee] with sackcloth, and wallow thyself in ashes: make thee mourning, [as for] an only son (יָחִיד), most bitter lamentation: for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us.

And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning of an only [son] (יָחִיד), and the end thereof as a bitter day.

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son] (הַיָּחִיד), and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn.

Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling (יְחִידָתִי) from the power of the dog.

Turn thee unto me, and have mercy upon me; for I [am] desolate (יָחִיד) and afflicted.

Lord, how long wilt thou look on? rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling (יְחִידָתִי) from the lions.

God setteth the solitary (יְחִידִים) in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains: but the rebellious dwell in a dry [land].

For I was my father's son, tender and only [beloved] (יָחִיד) in the sight of my mother.

Echad is much better. It can signify both unity and aloneness or uniqueness without the additional associations of Yachid.

Did not Achan the son of Zerah commit a trespass in regard to the devoted property, and wrath fell on all the congregation of Israel? and that man perished not alone (אֶחָד) in his iniquity.

Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah [that] bare you: for I called him alone (אֶחָד), and blessed him and increased him.

Thus says the Lord GOD, 'A disaster, unique (אַחַת) disaster, behold it is coming!

But He is unique (בְאֶחָד) and who can turn Him? And what His soul desires, that He does.

My dove, my undefiled is [but] one (אַחַת); she [is] the [only] one (אַחַת) of her mother, she [is] the choice [one] of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; [yea,] the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.

For if they fall, the one (הָאֶחָד) will lift up his fellow: but woe to him [that is] alone (הָאֶחָד) when he falleth; for [he hath] not another to help him up.

And David the king said to all the congregation, Solomon my son, whom alone (אֶחָד) God has chosen, is yet young and tender, and the work is great: for the palace is not for man, but for the LORD God.

Yachid is an inappropriate word to describe the "1" God.

I take it that you would rather stay close to the numerical meaning of Echad in Deut. 6:4. Do you find the proper interpretation of the Shema to be, not simply that there is one YHWH, but that the YHWH is one, ie., one absolutely, without further qualification? This is a possible way to read the Hebrew.

Alam, Deut. 17:6 proves you right. Consider: "On the testimony of two or three witnesses witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of of only one witness."

Now, if echad on it's own can imply a compound unity (i.e. three persons one being) then Deut. 17:6 is false, for it clearly states that no one shall be put to death on the testimony of one(echad) person.

Yes. Here also, Echad seems to mean "single", or according to the translation you used, "only one."

Infact in this regard and taking a related verse of scripture from the NT, Jesus proves the trinity doctrine false in John 18:3:

"And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me."

An excellent point. Along with John 5:31,32, this shows the distinct persons of the Father and the Son. They are not just two aspects of one being, like the human body and soul, or each individual human could count as multiple witnesses!

Above Jesus is refering to Deut. 17:6. But please note carefully that Deut. 17:6 specifically allows for "the testimony of two or three persons ". But Jesus restricts himself to the testimony of only two persons! Here was the perfect opportunity to expound the trinity doctrine, an excellent chance to make mention of the three persons of the holy trinity. Yet Jesus purposely does not, he mentions only two persons -- himself and his Father. It is inconceievable that Jesus would have left out the testimony of the third person of the holy trinity. We should take a hint, especially from Jesus.

Peace in Christ,

Jesus taught that the Paraclete is also a witness.

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.

This witness is invisible and unknown to the world (John 14:17).

God bless

Pythagoras

February 7th 2006, 04:00 AM

Greetings alam, and peace,

Thanks for another educational post.

Echad is much better. It can signify both unity and aloneness or uniqueness without the additional associations of Yachid.

I don't disagree.

I take it that you would rather stay close to the numerical meaning of Echad in Deut. 6:4.

Yes,I read the Shema as saying God is an absolute one God, and not a compound unity. It is speaking to His being.

Do you find the proper interpretation of the Shema to be, not simply that there is one YHWH, but that the YHWH is one, ie., one absolutely, without further qualification? This is a possible way to read the Hebrew.

Alam, is it not the same to say that "there is one God", as to say "God is one"? Isn't this the gist of our argument regarding echad. I don't understand what you're implying here? Maybe I'm missing the point of your argument.

Jesus taught that the Paraclete is also a witness.

This is one of the few places where we disagree. I believe God's Spirit( or what is commonly referred to as the holy spirit) is not a person/personality but God's presence , His all pervading influence in us . The NT teaches that God's Spirit dwells in the Saints, much like the "wind". I don't think a person/personality lives inside of me; no, no, but rather God's influence and His presence which guides me into all truth..

God bless you richly,

apostoli

February 7th 2006, 04:26 AM

Hi Alam,

For [echad as a composite plural] to be considered a possibility, there need to be potential instances. The supposed instances I have seen rely on the fallacy of reading plurality into Echad from the nouns it modifies. These only prove that Echad can modify a plurality which is grammatically singular, but even English 'one' does that: "one multitude." But in English we would not say "one horses" to mean several horses running together in unison, and neither would you ever say 'susim echad' in Hebrew.Through this post I'm going to harp on Deut 4:35-39 (sorry) and propose on the basis of these texts echad at Deut 6:4 cannot be understood in any way other than "there is no other".

To my weird mind: scripture trumps academia when it is emphatic and undeniable.

I don't dispute that elsewhere in scripture, echad might be viewed as a composite but even in the familiar cites there is debate. For instance: Gen 2:24 is interpreted by some as - man and women are one flesh in regards to their children, which are a composite of both father and mother. Given Gen 2:18, I tend for the interpretation that they are one in purpose and will.

A point to keep in mind is Deut 6:4 does not say "the Lord" but as the Hebrew shows "YHWH our God is one YHWH". In the gospels, the God of the OT (YHWH), is identified by Jesus as his Father, the one who sent him...Understanding this elementary truth of scripture, shows that Deut 6:4 cannot be understood in any way other than as referring to a singularity of person...Excellent point.It is even clearer when Deut 4:35 & 39 are included in the proof.

Non-trinitarianism does not leave one with the absolute divine simplicity concept of God by default.I'm not sure if I understand you. Would you explain.

A little later you say "Echad does not grammatically or semantically bring any plurality, even an inclusive plurality of attributes, into the nouns it modifies."

Some may be surprised that orthodox Islam does not conceive of God as completely singular and alone. They say he eternally co-exists with real, not virtual, attributes and an uncreated Koran. According to H.A. Wolfson (Philosophy of the Kalam), an early Muslim controversialist said that the difference between his beliefs and the Trinitarians was that they limited the attributes to three, whereas he and coreligionists numbered them at fifteen, iirc, and did not call them 'God' individually.That is interesting. As I recall correctly, there is a Jewish tradition of several things being co-eternal with God - one of which being the Torah.

Of course. Echad does not rule out a compound unity when it happens to modify a collective singular noun.Acknowledged. However, I trust you'll agree, the construction and subject of Deut 6:4 doesn't fit into this category. Especially given the prequel at Deut 4:35 & 39

Michael Brown [in his book "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus"] concedes in regard to the plural usage in the ANE: "In the Ancient Near East, it was common to refer to the deity in the compound plural, and when speaking of an owner or master, it was often the rule to speak of him in such terms...Yes, in the El-Amarna letters Pharaoh was called "ilania," my gods. This suggests an interesting dynamic in YHWH's setting of the Prophet Moshe, a stammering shepherd, as 'elohim' over Pharaoh.I recently read somewhere that "the critics" argue the idea of "majesty" (plurality of attributes / the inclusive we) is a relatively recent phenomena. I've also read the argument that the Jews came up with this idea of majesty to counter Christian claims. But I guess those that propose such aren't big on archeology.

It would not have been foreign to the biblical mind to conceive of God in anthropomorphic terms, having hands, eyes and breath, and seated on a throne above the heavens. The familiarity of the idea does not mean it was taken literally.As an illiterate, peasant, agrarian people, I'm inclined to believe they do and did. There is anthropological (cargo cults) and biblical evidence to suggest such (cp: Ex 32:1-6). In modern times: Don't the Mormons believe such in a physical sense?

In the case of a human being called 'adonim' or 'masters,' the ancients knew it was a figure of speech.Though, you have studied Hebrew, I'd suggest you might be understanding this in a modern western sense. When I went walk about (alone) through the provincial areas of Turkey and Greece, I rarely found anyone that spoke english and occasionally came across some interesting broken "english" eg: Yous want? (plural you applied specifically to me). I think much is lost between the idioms of various languages. Even in English, the "royal we" of the British monarchy refers to the Queen talking in the context of the will of the nation and the commonwealth, not her own (though sometimes we wonder), an idea that might be lost in the USA.

A common theme in intuitions of God's plurality is that there is some richness to God which cannot be conceived in terms of an absolute one. (Of course, to argue on this basis that an absolute one could not actually have that richness would be argumentum ad incredulum). Once this road is started down, of conceiving of the incomparable richness of God's life in terms of pluralities, where is the legitimate stopping point? If we believe God is infinite, it does not seem we could not stop anywhere short of infinity. And yes, it is true that even today, for ease of expression, we often speak of God’s infinity in quantitative terms, although no one (or almost no one) thinks that God is actually an infinite aggregate. The general view is that God is qualitatively infinite; but because this is difficult to conceive and talk about, we often slip into thinking and speaking in quantitative terms. There is nothing absurd about an absolute One being qualitatively infinite, nor about such a qualitative infinity being thought and spoken of, as an aid to human understanding, in quantitative, plural terms.Back when I did drama classes one interesting exercise was "There is a man, born blind and deaf, born without feet or arms. Describe to him a rose." Might sound tough, but consider, the man still had taste and smell and could feel texture. It is a matter of perspective, in this case the word "describe". And this is how I conceive conceptualizing God. It is a matter of perspective.

In regard to Deut 6:4 the perspective is in Deut 6:20-25. And therefore echad, can only be understood as referring to "YHWH who brought us out of Egypt." From Moses viewpoint: a single, complete in himself, entity. The God of his forefathers (Ex 3:6).

A quick word on composite unity: Have a look at Ex 32:4 where we have a perspective of "this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the Land of Egypt". True he did, and the tribes were also lead through the desert by the Shekinah, even Aaron had a part. All these working with a single purpose and aim. But via Deut 6:21 this has to be understood as all working by the will and power of "there is no other" = YHWH. (cp. Deut 33-39)

Gesenius gives ten definitions of singular Echad (אֶחָד). The seventh definition, the one with the thought of togetherness or compound unity, describes Echad with the prefix 'Kaph' (כְּאֶחָד). This literally translates, "like one" or "as one". The Shema does not say that YHWH is merely "as" one. As you can see, there is no Kaph prefix in Deuteronomy 6:4:

Something to note: Gesenius' fifth definition of Echad is "one only of its kind, Job 23:13; Ezekiel 7:5; Cant. 6:9." He makes a comparison to the Arabic cognate WaaHid (ﺪﺣﺍﻭ), which can mean "only one, incomparable."To my mind Deut 4:35 & 4:39 "there is no other" (NEB) defines how we are to understand echad at 6:4. However, we also need to take 6:5 into account. After all 6:4+5 are the message of one idea (see below).

Echad does not grammatically or semantically bring any plurality, even an inclusive plurality of attributes, into the nouns it modifies. It just means "one" of whatever it modifies. But things have attributes that make them what they are, and so something in the quantity of "one" naturally includes its attributes. Whether or not God has real, subsisting attributes, as per Sunni Islam, is a theological issue, unrelated to the semantics of Echad afaict.I only know what I learn. I'm constantly trying learn. I am ignorant in this regard, so I accept at face value what you say grammatically. Though, I might suggest that words can take on a nuance, when read in their context. As noted: Deut 6:4 is only the opening of a sentence completed by vs5. The question I am prone to ask: Is vs4 sufficient reason to justify vs5? (see below)

[From the Chassidic Masters:] "It was to express His echad-ness that He created the world, created man, granted him freedom of choice, and commanded him the Torah. He created existences that, at least in their own perception, are distinct of Him, and gave them the tools to bring their lives into utter harmony with His will. When a diverse and plural world chooses, by its own initiative, to unite with Him, the divine oneness assumes a new, deeper expression -- G-d is echad."Nuances drawn out in Jewish mysticism do not speak to the level where confusion occurs in Deuteronomy 6:4, imho. It is a basic confusion about the Peshat-level significance of 'Echad' in context.

I can see where he is coming from in the above, in that Yachid means "single", which carries no implication beyond itself, whereas Echad is a numerical unit, and as such, is part of a continuum--a unity in relation to plurality. The Rabbi does not say that Echad itself is plural, but that it is a one which unifies pluralities; it is a one-for-many. I believe all philosophical monotheists agree that the world of many is in need of a one, and that this need is supplied by God. In no way does this necessitate that the one itself is many.As noted above: I suggest Deut 4:35 & 4:39 provide sufficient context to how echad is to be understood at 6:4. And sufficient to prove it is not used as a compound plurality.

I might suggest: that though you are correct in what you say regarding what the Rabbi implies, you may have missed what he said. I understand him in the context of Deut 6:20. The justification for Deut 6:5 (Deut 7:6-13)

Also, as per Gesenius, Echad can also mean "one only of a kind" or unique.We don't need a grammar to prove the point: just Deut 4:35 & 4:39. "You must call back to your heart that Jehovah is the [true] God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath. There is no other."

What has occurred to me is "yachid" was once a term of exclusive uniqueness.In the Bible 'yachid' seems to have had negative connotations. It is used in the sense of "forlorn" or "dear," and also means "only-begotten," "only child." Imagine the heyday people would have if the Shema could be read that "YHWH is the only son"! :-S
Hmmm. We'd certainly have to redefine God, as Deut 4 would have the "only son" being "the only God". Modalists might like it. Hmmm...

In biblical Hebrew at least, Echad was the right word to use. Echad can have the meaning of "alone" or "exclusive uniqueness" cf. again Gesenius above. In Deut. 6:4 this is perhaps more likely than the numerical sense. A statement that YHWH is one YHWH in the numerical sense would be tautologous, because, as it has been somewhere remarked, anything is "one" inasmuch as it "is" at all. So, I think there is good reason to see the Shema as involving one of the other definitions of Echad, such as Gesenius' fifth definition.All I could find on the net was Strong's, have you a direct link to Gesenius? Presume you mean: "one only of a kind" or unique.

I'm happy to take Deut 4 literally "There is no other", I'm not keen on the other English renditions. ie: Deut 6:4 is not about genus but status (cp: Deut 6:14-15; 1 Cor 8:5-6).

We have to be careful about defining 'echad' too sharply in opposition to 'yachid.'As both you and Pythagoras have noted "Yachid has negative connotations", so I think sharp contrast is justified. In post #94 Pythagoras, notes "[Yachid] is found a grand total of about 12 times in the entire bible -- desolate, lonely, isolated etc" so even on the basis of usage their is a sharp contrast.

Basically, I know only what I read. As previously discussed yachid seems to have changed meaning and no longer reflects the biblical meaning. As the Bishop said to the Rabbi ? and the Rabbi replied !

The context of my understanding: God is not Yachid (lonely). He doesn't need us! We need him! And he wants us, to add him, to ourselves (see below).

In biblical usage they have seem to have overlapped someWould you expand on this.

However, the word "echad" is one of inclusion and I might suggest is better understood in the context of Deut 4:35-39; 6:20; 7:6-13 (ie: chapters 4 through 7). Aka: though God cannot be added to, we can add him to us - be as one with him. If he was "yachid" this would not be possible.yachid had connotations that would not have been suitable for God.Possibly, I am overly influenced by the Jewish perspective of echad when used at Deut 6:4, though I suggest with some justification.

In the KJV rendering of Deut 6 (and other renderings) there is verses 4 and 5, but look closely at the punctuation, they are one sentence. The NEB renders "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, one Lord, and you must love the Lord with all your heart and soul and strength."

My understanding of love is that it is a binding force and I suggest this is what Deut 6:5 is talking about. That which we love isn't just an attachment to us, isn't external to us, but becomes a part of us.

Deut 4:29-40, sets the picture for me. God sought out Moses, and the people to whose forefathers he had made a promise. God has shown his love and faithfulness, it is now upto the Israelites to reciprocate. "If you seek [YHWH] your God, you shall find him, if you seek him with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deut 4:29).

To an extent, I see the message of Deut 6:2-6, as reflected in 1 Thess 5:23 (though we obey not the letter but the spirit of the law).

As an aside: Somewhere I was reading how the Jewish concept of God and his Law contrasted with the Greek gods and the lack of a moral law attributed as coming from the gods. Seems the Greek gods were made to conform with whatever moral laws each generation conceived. Was it Plato who lamented that the gods were changeable and the moral laws to which the gods conformed were conceptions of man - agreed by consensus. And, this is proposed as the gulf between the biblical moral laws to other systems - there is to be no consensus on what should or shouldn't be obeyed - the law was given to us by God for our guidance and protection (cp Deut 4:40). And why we take heed...

"This day, then, be sure and take to heart that the Lord is God in heaven above and on earth below; there is no other." (Deut 4:39 - NEB).

Additionally, the Tanach does not use Echad in the looser way that the Gospel of John does in John 10:30 and chapter 17. In John, there seems to be an idiom whereby neuter hen can serve in a weaker sense to signify unity or at-oneness; this also appears in Paul. We do not know what this idiom might translate from Jesus' Aramaic.Jn 10:30-31 made me pause to think on whether Chassidic thinking (see previous post), has been influenced by Christian thinking? I think not. I'd suggest Gamaliel and the like may have had a Chassidic understanding (cp: Acts 5:39) but the others were more influenced by their combat/absorption of hellenistic and secular ideas (cp: Matt 23:13-37).

Given Jn 10:31, I would suggest, A.John used eis in a very strong manner. After all, the Aramaic words that Jesus used (which A.John renders in the Greek) were enough to provoke the Jews to want to stone him. Have a look at Jesus explanation at vs38 "though you believe me not, believe the works, that you may know, and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him." And in their lack of understanding the Jews still wanted to stone him!

As a digression: I do not understand Jn 10:25-39, in the same way as the evangelicals and catechists. Particularly, as we are talking about Jesus' humanity and pointedly because of Jn 13:16 & Phil 2:7-8. When Jesus says the Father is in him, I see it in a similar sense as Deut 6:6 and when Jesus says he is in the Father, I see it in a similar sense to Deut 6:5. The two conditions Jesus regularly points out are absent in most of the Jews (cp: John 8:29-47). You might disagree but consider Jesus declared his "works" to be his witness - "though you believe not me, believe the works". In times past Elisha and the other prophets did similar works and they too were detested.

To put this stoning thing in perspective: in modern Jerusalem, there are Jews who stone cars on the Shabbat, as they see those driving as defiling the law. To this day, there is a lot of hypocrisy amongst religious Jews, who obey the letter but not the spirit.

Regarding John 17: Here too I believe the words are used with force. Particularly as I reflect on A.Paul's words regarding many members but one body. But then again I put a particular emphasis on Jn 17:23 (cp: Rom 8:9-11), that you may not share.

...Otherwise, Maimonides would have got too much flack from his other Hebrew scholars. After all, the Jews are famous for their fractionism.Fractionism?? I think most religions have a bit to work on in that department... :-)Especially, judeo-christianity. Well! In human nature there is a tendency to copy one's elder brothers :-}

Shalom...

apostoli

February 7th 2006, 04:27 AM

Hi Pythagoras,

Be gentle with me. We are about to broach a few things we see differently ;-}

A point to keep in mind is Deut 6:4 does not say "the Lord" but as the Hebrew shows "YHWH our God is one YHWH". In the gospels, the God of the OT (YHWH), is identified by Jesus as his Father, the one who sent him. ...Understanding this elementary truth of scripture, shows that Deut 6:4 cannot be understood in any way other than as referring to a singularity of person...This is an excellent observation. The only way out is to equivocate the word "God".Something I might be accused of, but at least not as you might apply it to the fundamentalist mind.

Firstly: I believe that Deut 6:4 is refering to one person = YHWH
And just to clarify: I don't mean that in the modalist sense; nor any other sense. YHWH is the God of the OT and the one Jesus, his disciples and the apostles taught was Jesus Christ's Father!

I'd suggest that the scriptures do not deny the existence of what people perceive as other gods or other lords (eg: Ex 4:28; Ex 6:14-15; 1 Cor 8:5-6). And I further suggest: the Father contrasts himself with those that men perceive as gods and lords. What is god? In the context I've given, it is not an irreverent question. It is the one, YHWH himself via the scriptures challenges us for an answer. (cp: Prv 30)

Don't get me wrong here. Within the limit of human language, we apply labels and definitions of those labels. It is within this context that I propose the question. Undoubtedly, there is one that is the source and cause of anything and everything (excluding himself). Whom I conceive as the Father of our Kurios (master and owner), Jesus Christ

Even the Nicenes acknowledged this when they said "We believe in one God the Father and..."

Of interest: the word "eis" is used at Mark 12:29, which is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew "echad" and which the scribe understood to mean as a numerical "one". (cp: eis usage at Eph 4:4-6 - nb: contrast gr=mono which is similar to heb=yachid).Also of interest: the Septuahint LXX always translated the Hebrew word for God(Elohim) in the singular (Greek Theos). It has been argued by some, and rightly so, that if Elohim in the OT proves a "compound unity" of God then the use of Eloha in places like Deut. 32:15-17 and Hab. 3:3 must of necessity disaprove it! Trin.'s can't have their cake and eat it too.Very true. But I ask you to consider there are trins and then there are those that believe that God the Father, is exalted through his Son and by us via the paraclete who he has sent to sustain us. One lot negate the Father another exalts him above all else.

"In the Ancient Near East, it was common to refer to the deity in the compound plural, and when speaking of an owner or master, it was often the rule to speak of him in such terms...Smith's Bible Dictionary, p. 220, in their article entitled "God" is instructive in this regard: The plural form of Elohim has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful idea that it referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God (p. 220).A good point. And one I suggest that both Athanasius and Arius would agree with.

...Abraham's servant speaks to him in the plural in Genesis 24 ('adonim, literally, "lords"), Joseph speaks of Potiphar in the plural in Genesis 39, and David is referred to as "lords" in 1 Kings 1:11. More to the point, God speaks in Malachi 1:6, which reads: "If I am a Lords where is my honor?" Deuteronomy 10:17 refers to God as "the Gods of gods and the Lords of lords." In regards to pagan parallels to this in the ANE, Brown writes the following in an endnote:Elohim is also used of single human figures. Moses in both Exodus 4:16 and 7:1 and the Messianic king in Psalms 45:6 (verse 7 in the Hebrew Bible) are each referred to as Elohim. Was Abraham 3 persons 1 being ? ...Not to forget Elohim is used of Dagon(1 Sam 5:7), of Chemosh (Jud. 11:24 etc), Ashtarte (1 Kings 11:33), etc. Were all these Deities "three persons in one being"?Valid point. I'll put that in my archives. Thankyou!

Note that in the Akkadian dialect attested in Tell El-Amarna, Egypt, the Pharaoh, who was considered divine, is literally called 'my gods'' cf. Yes, the word is ilania. Was Pharaoh a 3 in/is 1 being?The evangelicals & catechist have a lot to answer for - the plurality of the word elohim is not a proof of the trinity.

To my mind: the tri-unity is a reflection of the message that the Father, in his inter-action with mankind is threefold - directly as source and cause, through his Son (the shekinah / the angel of the Lord in the OT) and in these days by his bestowal of the Holy Spirit. To my mind: it is synonymous with A.Paul's concept of the body of Christ - many members but one unified body. My slant is that God does not want us to be separated from him, he wants us to have him as part of us. aka John 17:22-23, slightly repharased "And the glory which you have given Jesus, Jesus has has given us, that we may be one, even as Jesus and the Father are one: Jesus in us, and the Father in Jesus, that we may be made perfect in one"

What has occured to me is "yachid" was once a term of exclusive uniqueness. However, the word "echad" is one of inclusion and I might suggest is better understood in the context of Deut 4:35-39; 6:20; 7:6-13 (ie: chapters 4 through 7). Aka: though God cannot be added to, we can add him to us - be as one with him. If he was "yachid" this would not be possible.Agreed. Point is that yachid is not the Hebrew numeral for "1", echad is, so it is inappropriate to use to to describe the "1" true God. Yachid also has negative connotations. It is found a grand total of about 12 times in the entire bible. -- desolate, lonely, isolated etc. Maimonadies out of weakness used it to describe the "1" true God in order to "silence" trinitarian objections to echad, but he did more harm than good unfortunately, giving trinitarians a perfect opening to suggest echad to not be the correct word to describe a non-compound one God.Thanks for the info on "yachid", I have had difficulty researching the word. Would you point me somewhere - to a direct ref. Thanks. (Ooops! Just discovered that since my last download of TWeb, Alam, has a reply to you that sets forth yachid - if you have anthing to add, I'd appreaciate it!)

It seems clear to me that all scholars and translators view echad as used at Deut 6:4 as a numerical one - a singularity of person.Yes. "1", as opposed to "2", "3", "4", etc. Is there an intrinsic compound unity to the numeral "1"? Ofcourse not.AS I suggested to Alam in a recent post, we don't have to go past Deut 4:35-39 to get a definition of echad as far as Deut 6:4 is concerned = "there is no other" (NEB).

Shalom...

apostoli

February 7th 2006, 04:55 AM

Hi Oldmonk,

I see it the same as you and am wondering just where you disagree with me???Possibly I miss understood your post #72 - "I thank you for your thoughts. I however do not see things quite that way". Admittedly, I was attempting to argue from a WTS view, which would be approximate to orthodoxy but for the emphasis they put on certain aspects (eg: definition of Jesus' sonship, restriction applied to Rev 3:21 and several other aspects which I didn't raise).

Essentially, any disagreement you and I have is probably semantics or different understandings regarding propitiation (Rom 3:25; 1 Jn 2:2; 4:10) or different understanding of the emphasis scripture makes.

That said: your appeal to Hebrews 1:4-8 is catechist and has an obvious refutation at Heb Heb 1:9 and 2:9-10.

My view is neither fundementalist nor catechist but based on what is taught by scripture (as opposed to what I may want scripture to teach).

Just doing an Acts 17:11 & 1 John 4:1.

The WTS encourages their people to gain epignosis (full and accurate knowledge) and often cite Jn 17:3 in their quest. Whether we disagree with them or not, it is good advice.

apostoli

February 7th 2006, 05:13 AM

Hi MichaelCadry,

Dear All,

How can you even think that the Archangel and Guardian Angel Michael could fill the shoes or sandals of Jesus's feet?? Jesus is more than the Archangel Michael. We are told that Jesus shall have dominion over all of the angels and people on earth.

The angel that guides me is the Archangel Michael, and is my namesake, but for those things that he needs helping with, Jesus, and if necessary, God and the Holy Spirit step in. Heaven is almost somewhat like a corporation. If one of the lesser cannot figure out the answer or problem, then they are helped by someone who can help.

The archangel Michael is quite strong and close to God indeed, but God's Son Jesus is closer to God besides, so don't sit and wonder.Best you go read the ANFs (pre-nicene christian writers) and even Calvin. The tradition within christianity dates to the early church - the OT's "angel of the Lord" and "the Archangel Michael" are seen as being Jesus/Logos interaction with man prior to his incarnation.

It is only the modalists (oneness pentecostals) that fight against this teaching. And those without epignosis or at least some gnosis (ie: Catechists).

If your motivation is to refute Arians, remember, even the early Arians (and Arius) believed the Son was God from God!

apostoli

February 7th 2006, 05:41 AM

Hi Topherlee,

You are right! Jesus as the Logos was chosen before anything was created.Ah good! We agree on some elementary truth.

Then Jesus was created (Rev 3:14, Col 1:15). Jesus was the beginning of creation of God and the firstborn of every creatureNeither verse says so, it is your interpretation. Fair enough!

But lets also look at Col 1:18 "the firstborn from the dead, that in all things [Jesus] might have pre-eminence". How do you understand pre-eminence?

Jesus pre-existed as a thought (logos) - the word.Don't relate that to your district overseer. You'll be disfellowshiped. Two reasons: it is a modalist teaching and secondly it is not a teaching of the faithful and discreet slave.

You make the logos a spiritual or physical thing.
See 1 John 4:2.

Again, don't relate that to your district overseer. You'll be disfellowshiped. Two reasons: it is a modalist teaching and secondly it is not a teaching of the faithful and discreet slave.

When it simply means Gods thought or speech.Hmm. Are you a modalist troll or what?

Unless the WTS has changed its mind again. Logos does not mean the speech/word spoken, written or otherwise. Go read the Watchtower. Better still, read the WTS publication Insights on the Scriptures pages 1200-1201.

To repeat my previous post...

Logos does not mean thoughts or speech! Check any lexicon, the greek word is very complex - reason manifested is a close approximation. More particularly Logos refers to the message, doctrine or teaching for instance at John 12:48 we have "He who ignores me [sets me aside] and does not accept my words (gr: rheemata), has a judge: the logos I have spoken, that logos will judge him in the last day." Also, consider Jn 14:23-24 "If anyone love me, he will keep my logos...and the logos which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me."

Refer Gordon H. Clark, The Johannine Logos (1972), Chapter 3, Logos and Rheemata, page 41.

Jesus is the Rev 22:16 ...bright morning star. Above the others Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together.... These are the words of Jesus himself.So now you even deny that Jesus is at the least a son of God in any sense.

Again, don't relate that to your district overseer. You'll be disfellowshiped. Several reasons: it is considered apostacy in any semblance of christianity and secondly it is not a teaching of the faithful and discreet slave and thirdly your correlation is fully refuted by scripture and fourthly, you misquote, misapply scripture. Proof...

"Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth...When the morning starrs joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?" (Job 38:4-7 - NWT)

The answer is in Proverbs 8:23-30 (NWT) "from time indefinite I was installed, from the start I was installed, from times ealier than the earth...when he prepared the heavens I was there...when he decreed the foundations of the earth then I came to be beside him as a mster worker."

Pythagoras

February 7th 2006, 05:53 AM

Greetings apostoli,

Thanks for your reply. For the most part we agree!

.Regarding further information on "yachid" , read alam's latest post directed to me . He presents some good points . I have not much more to ad at this point.

You made the following comment to alam:

The context of my understanding: God is not Yachid (lonely). He doesn't need us! We need him! And he wants us, to add him, to ourselves (see below).

This is a great point indeed. God is self sufficient.

On a related note, the "perichoresis" of the three persons signals mutual interdependence and demands a community of being, implying a lack of independence. -- the three persons need each other. As the trinitian Kruger puts it, "when one weeps the other tastes the salt." In this regard, trinitarians mantain because God is love he must be triune, otherwise God could not have loved before the creation of the Universe. The unity of perfect love necessarily involves a "three-ness" ,an inter-dependence, so they say. First, an original source of love -- a "person" -- who bestows Himself infinitely (that is to say, fully and completely), namely the person called the "Father"; second, a person who receives that love fully and completely and gives itself back in love infinitely (that is to say fully and completely), namely the person called the "Son"; and also an infinite love that binds them together infinitely (that is to say fully and completely), namely the person called the "Spirit".

The most obvious problem with the above is that perfect love does not really involve a "three-ness", otherwise we would have to conclude God formed an imperfect love in His union of Adam and Eve , and Jesus was refering to an imperfect love when he said the man shall leave his father and mother to be united with his wife , the two becoming one flesh.

Peace in Christ,

apostoli

February 7th 2006, 06:20 AM

Hi Pythagoras,

Thanks for your reply. For the most part we agree!Hard not to when we both hold the scriptures as the final arbitrator :-)

On a related note, the "perichoresis" of the three persons signals mutual interdependence and demands a community of being, implying a lack of independence. -- the three persons need each other. As the trinitian Kruger puts it, "when one weeps the other tastes the salt." In this regard, trinitarians mantain because God is love he must be triune, otherwise God could not have loved before the creation of the Universe.I've come full circle. It was in my endevours to refute the trinity that I have come to believe in it, but my understanding is now that of the eastern orthodox (EOC) rather than the latin churches (RCC).

Kruger seems to reflect Augustine's feeling on the matter, and last year reading Augustine I was not impressed. His language takes a lot to digest. As I have had time to reflect on Augustine, I feel I may have maligned him in various threads but I do hold him as culpable in confusing todays understanding of what the tri-unity is and means.

The EOC accuses him as originating the filioque. Which I find true. But, in Augustine's defense, his thoughts were his own, it was his friends that published them without his consent.

What can I say, other than respond to Nicene and declare I believe in one God the Father and...

The unity of perfect love necessarily involves a "three-ness" ,an inter-dependence, so they say.I guess this is the difference between the Augustine/Aquinas view and the technical exactness of the EOC. "1. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
Who is the true Father, the sole, indivisible, Hypostatic Source(arch), Fount(phgh), Cause(aitia), and Principle(arch) of the Subsistence and Unity and Consubstantiality(omoousios) of the other Two Hypostases"

First, an original source of love -- a "person" -- who bestows Himself infinitely (that is to say, fully and completely), namely the person called the "Father"; second, a person who receives that love fully and completely and gives itself back in love infinitely (that is to say fully and completely), namely the person called the "Son"; and also an infinite love that binds them together infinitely (that is to say fully and completely), namely the person called the "Spirit".This is the Augustine view. Though I appreciate his analogy, I don't accept it as scriptural nor actual.

The most obvious problem with the above is that perfect lovePointedly, (in my opinion) if you put Augustine under the microscope he is aguing binitarianism - the spirit becomes just an expression - the manifestation of love.

does not really involve a "three-ness", otherwise we would have to conclude God formed an imperfect love in His union of Adam and Eve , and Jesus was refering to an imperfect love when he said the man shall leave his father and mother to be united with his wife , the two becoming one flesh.I'm not sure if I understand what you mean.

Augustine's idea, as I understand it, is that a man's and woman's mutual love is a reflection of the unity of love that the Father and Son express toward each other. The holy unifying spirit being the joining force. Poetically, who can disagree.

Niceties apart, the Spirit is sent to us to help us perseverve. Not bask in the mutual love, but be sustained by mutual love. I guess this is where I begin to be at odds with Augustine - make that the middle of my disagreements :-).

NonTrinitarian

February 7th 2006, 09:11 AM

Text please?

What, are you kidding me? You don't know where the Bible calls Jesus God's "Firstborn"?

Must have you a little worried now about your logic, huh?

Shadow Phoenix

February 7th 2006, 01:44 PM

What, are you kidding me? You don't know where the Bible calls Jesus God's "Firstborn"?

Must have you a little worried now about your logic, huh?

Instead of using a snide remark, you could have just provided the text.

NonTrinitarian

February 7th 2006, 02:38 PM

Instead of using a snide remark, you could have just provided the text.

You threw the argument out there, not me. I'm just poking holes in it. As Jesus asked Nicodemus, "Are you a teacher of Israel and yet you do not know these things?"

Shadow Phoenix

February 7th 2006, 02:52 PM

You threw the argument out there, not me. I'm just poking holes in it. As Jesus asked Nicodemus, "Are you a teacher of Israel and yet you do not know these things?"

Yes. I have no problem still anyhow. In reviewing, I think the text you are speaking of is in Heberws 1. I still have no problem with this and here's why.

Topher is speaking of firstborn as an act that is taking place within time. If they wish to use it as an argument from chronology, then I would ask simply if Jesus comes forth from the creation.

I have no problem saying Jesus came forth from God. I have no problem even speaking of it as a creation. I have a problem however, with people who strap Arian baggage into it and assume that this takes place within time instead of being an event in eternity.

Oldmonk

February 7th 2006, 03:12 PM

The JW position is that Thomas was addressing the Father as God and Jesus as Lord. Where do you get the idea Thomas was saying "Oh God" like someone does when they are scared or surprised?

That is the explination I was told for that verse... And what makes you believe that Thomas is talking to TWO people in that verse??? Please explain the gramatic structure or clue that lets you in on that secret.

Oldmonk

February 7th 2006, 03:23 PM

Hi Oldmonk,

Possibly I miss understood your post #72 - "I thank you for your thoughts. I however do not see things quite that way". Admittedly, I was attempting to argue from a WTS view, which would be approximate to orthodoxy but for the emphasis they put on certain aspects (eg: definition of Jesus' sonship, restriction applied to Rev 3:21 and several other aspects which I didn't raise).

Essentially, any disagreement you and I have is probably semantics or different understandings regarding propitiation (Rom 3:25; 1 Jn 2:2; 4:10) or different understanding of the emphasis scripture makes.

That said: your appeal to Hebrews 1:4-8 is catechist and has an obvious refutation at Heb Heb 1:9 and 2:9-10.

My view is neither fundementalist nor catechist but based on what is taught by scripture (as opposed to what I may want scripture to teach).

Just doing an Acts 17:11 & 1 John 4:1.

The WTS encourages their people to gain epignosis (full and accurate knowledge) and often cite Jn 17:3 in their quest. Whether we disagree with them or not, it is good advice.

Thanks for the clarification:) Yes it is GOOD advice to take in ACURATE Knowledge... By the way their use in that verse is NOTHING CLOSE TO THE GREEK ( ie. John 17:3 ) In fact their own KINGDOM INTERLINEAR betrays that fact. A witness must ask him/herself if taking in knowledge of someone is the same as KNOWING someone... In every part of the world not influenced by Brooklyn I would have to say no...would you not agree... Just another example of how the WBTS handles scripture and twists it to their intent.
By the way I also am a FREE thinker and do not espouse any position other than dictated by the scriptures. I am neither Catholic or Protestant... though my thinking leans towards the latter.

Oldmonk

February 7th 2006, 03:27 PM

What, are you kidding me? You don't know where the Bible calls Jesus God's "Firstborn"?

Must have you a little worried now about your logic, huh?

FIRSTBORN Doesn't MEAN first CREATED!!!!!! Isaac is Abrahams FIRSTBORN according to YHWH... Yet Ishmael is Abrahams FIRST CHILD!!! Prototokos NEVER means first created but speaks of "PREEMINANCE".

Oldmonk

February 7th 2006, 03:34 PM

You are right! Jesus as the Logos was chosen before anything was created. Then Jesus was created (Rev 3:14, Col 1:15).
Jesus was the beginning of creation of God and the firstborn of every creature. Jesus pre-existed as a thought (logos) - the word. You make the logos a spiritual or physical thing. When it simply means Gods thought or speech.

Jesus is the Rev 22:16 ...bright morning star. Above the others Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together.... These are the words of Jesus himself.

Once again the FIRSTBORN = FIRST CREATED!!! NO!!! The Greek word speaks of "PREEMINANCE" Was Jesus the "firstborn from the dead" YES if you speak of preeminance. NO if you mean that he is the first to rise from the dead... Elijahs raising of the boy and Jesus raising of Lazereth DEFINATELY preceeded Jesus in time!!! They didn't preceed him in preeminance though!!! So when you read that WATCHTOWERISM in your NWT you must ask yourself if you are taking in ACURATE KNOWLEDGE... if not then your own theology condems you!!

NonTrinitarian

February 7th 2006, 03:38 PM

Yes. I have no problem still anyhow. In reviewing, I think the text you are speaking of is in Heberws 1. I still have no problem with this and here's why.

Topher is speaking of firstborn as an act that is taking place within time. If they wish to use it as an argument from chronology, then I would ask simply if Jesus comes forth from the creation.
A little bit of backpeddling is going on here. Just replace "Abraham" with "God" and we can see the argument is bogus. So then you jump to the old "creation gave birth to Jesus" argument. Allow me to quote the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" on this.

We should mention a common Trinitarian argument for not taking the term "firstborn of Creation" literally. It is stated that a literal understanding of the term would mean that creation gave birth to Jesus. This is based on the argument that the term "firstborn of Pharoah" designates the first child born to Pharoah. So if Jesus were the "firstborn of creation" we would be saying that creation gave birth to Jesus. However, this argument is a hat trick that is not entirely accurate. True, if we say Jesus was the "firstborn of God" we could then rightly understand that God gave birth to Jesus. (And the scriptures do say Jesus is God's "firstborn" in Hebrews 1:6.) The same can be said if we say a prince is the "firstborn of Pharoah." However, we would not hold to that explanation if w said the young prince was the "firstborn of Pharoah's house." We would then understand that the prince, compared to all other children fathered by Pharoah, was the first child amonst his brothers and sisters. Why the difference in meaning?

The first case involves proper nouns, that is, Pharoah and God. The other example involves a collective noun (house) with the term Pharoah simply being an adjective describing whose house we are referencing. Usually when a collective noun is used the person is understood to be part of that collective noun. Which mode does the term "firstborn of creation" involve? We note that the term "creation" is not a proper noun describing and individual, it is a collective noun describing a group. In this construction no one should honestly understand that the young prince was fathered by Pharoah's house or that Jesus was fathered by all of creation."-Holt, pg 250, TellWay Publishing, 2002

So that pretty much shows the trickery in the argument that creation gave birth to Jesus. Also, I challenge you to find ONE verse in ALL of the Bible where someone is said to be "firstborn of (insert some group)" and is not part of that (insert some group). Good luck.

(Knowing you won't be able to find one, I'll jump to the conclusion) Since in no other instance in the Bible is someone said to be firstborn of a group and not be included in the group, it is blatantly obvious Trinitarian bias is needed to say Jesus is not part of the group of creation he is firstborn of.

I have no problem saying Jesus came forth from God. I have no problem even speaking of it as a creation. I have a problem however, with people who strap Arian baggage into it and assume that this takes place within time instead of being an event in eternity.

I have no problem saying Jesus came forth from God. I have no problem even speaking of it as a creation. I have a problem however, with people who strap Trinitarian baggage into it and assume that this event is not really an event (IE, if it is in the eternal past and there is a never a point in which you can say it actually happened) rather than assume the words mean what they would mean in any other sentence on earth.

Oldmonk

February 7th 2006, 03:39 PM

Hi Topher. let's see if you actually answer me here unlike certain other threads. First off, A. Paul points out nothing in John 20:17. I hope you're referring to 1 Cor. 8 instead, but your point in John 20 is weak. How come Jesus didn't say "Our God" and "Our Father"?

Furthermore, God is defined in relational terms in the OT as the God of Israel or the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, yet in the NT, it's "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." God is defined in his relationship to Jesus as Father. Now, are you going to tell me if God has always been the Father or not?

And yes, the Bible never says "God the Son." I'm sorry, but is there supposed to be a point ot that? The Bible never uses the term "New Testament Scriptures either. I guess we shouldn't believe those.

Topher. This is a remaking of the Shema in Christian language. Why would Paul include Christ in the Shema?

Actually, in black and white, in the beginning in John 1:1, the Word is already there! It is then through the Word that ALL things come into being. Tell me Topher. Did time come into existence through the logos?

Also, Rev. 3:14 can be translated accurately as saying that Christ is the origin of God's creation, which matches the prologue of John.

Looking forward to your answer.

The Bible NEVER mentions God's THEOCRATIC Government either :lol:
They never mention that fact do they :smile:

Shadow Phoenix

February 7th 2006, 03:43 PM

A little bit of backpeddling is going on here. Just replace "Abraham" with "God" and we can see the argument is bogus. So then you jump to the old "creation gave birth to Jesus" argument. Allow me to quote the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" on this.

-Holt, pg 250, TellWay Publishing, 2002

So that pretty much shows the trickery in the argument that creation gave birth to Jesus. Also, I challenge you to find ONE verse in ALL of the Bible where someone is said to be "firstborn of (insert some group)" and is not part of that (insert some group). Good luck.

(Knowing you won't be able to find one, I'll jump to the conclusion) Since in no other instance in the Bible is someone said to be firstborn of a group and not be included in the group, it is blatantly obvious Trinitarian bias is needed to say Jesus is not part of the group of creation he is firstborn of.

I have no problem saying Jesus came forth from God. I have no problem even speaking of it as a creation. I have a problem however, with people who strap Trinitarian baggage into it and assume that this event is not really an event (IE, if it is in the eternal past and there is a never a point in which you can say it actually happened) rather than assume the words mean what they would mean in any other sentence on earth.

Nah. I was never looking at it from the chronological perspective. That was Topher's position. If they want to keep that position, then let them draw out the ramifications. The Col. 1 passage is speaking of position however and not of chronology. After all, the NWT had to add the word "other" in four times to avoid what the passage was teaching.

As for your last point, I would simply ask then if God has always been loving or if at one time he began to love.

Shadow Phoenix

February 7th 2006, 03:45 PM

The Bible NEVER mentions God's THEOCRATIC Government either :lol:
They never mention that fact do they :smile:

Ah yes. It's amazing how the rule applies when you want it to but doesn't when you don't.

Pythagoras

February 7th 2006, 03:47 PM

Greetings apostoli,
and peace in Christ,

Pointedly, (in my opinion) if you put Augustine under the microscope he is aguing binitarianism - the spirit becomes just an expression - the manifestation of love.

And that's my point.

Augustine's idea, as I understand it, is that a man's and woman's mutual love is a reflection of the unity of love that the Father and Son express toward each other. The holy unifying spirit being the joining force. Poetically, who can disagree.

That's what Augustine says. But he conveniently forgets that the holy spirit is another person(according to the triniy doctrine) , and not just a joining force or a witness of the father's and son's interdependent love. If the father and son share in this "mutual love" and the holy spirit is just a peeping Tom of sorts, isn't the person of the holy spirit unloved, or at the very least not loved to the same capacity/degree as the other two persons? Crudly put, you end up with an orgy in this conception, and not a perfect manifestation of love, in my opinion. Don't they say three's a crowd?

Oldmonk

February 7th 2006, 03:49 PM

Hello Apostoli:

For it to be considered a possibility, there need to be potential instances. The supposed instances I have seen rely on the fallacy of reading plurality into Echad from the nouns it modifies. These only prove that Echad can modify a plurality which is grammatically singular, but even English 'one' does that: "one multitude." But in English we would not say "one horses" to mean several horses running together in unison, and neither would you ever say 'susim echad' in Hebrew.

Excellent point. Non-trinitarianism does not leave one with the absolute divine simplicity concept of God by default. Some may be surprised that orthodox Islam does not conceive of God as completely singular and alone. They say he eternally co-exists with real, not virtual, attributes and an uncreated Koran. According to H.A. Wolfson (Philosophy of the Kalam), an early Muslim controversialist said that the difference between his beliefs and the Trinitarians was that they limited the attributes to three, whereas he and correligionists numbered them at fifteen, iirc, and did not call them 'God' individually.

Of course. Echad does not rule out a compound unity when it happens to modify a collective singular noun.

Yes, in the El-Amarna letters Pharoah was called "ilania," my gods. This suggests an interesting dynamic in YHWH's setting of the Prophet Moshe, a stammering shepherd, as 'elohim' over Pharaoh.

It would not have been foreign to the biblical mind to conceive of God in anthropomorphic terms, having hands, eyes and breath, and seated on a throne above the heavens. The familiarity of the idea does not mean it was taken literally. In the case of a human being called 'adonim' or 'masters,' the ancients knew it was a figure of speech.

A common theme in intuitions of God's plurality is that there is some richness to God which cannot be conceived in terms of an absolute one. (Of course, to argue on this basis that an absolute one could not actually have that richness would be argumentum ad incredulum). Once this road is started down, of conceiving of the incomparable richness of God's life in terms of pluralities, where is the legitimate stopping point? If we believe God is infinite, it does not seem we could not stop anywhere short of infinity. And yes, it is true that even today, for ease of expression, we often speak of God’s infinity in quantitative terms, although no one (or almost no one) thinks that God is actually an infinite aggregate. The general view is that God is qualitatively infinite; but because this is difficult to conceive and talk about, we often slip into thinking and speaking in quantitative terms. There is nothing absurd about an absolute One being qualitatively infinite, nor about such a qualitative infinity being thought and spoken of, as an aid to human understanding, in quantitative, plural terms.

Echad does not grammatically or semantically bring any plurality, even an inclusive plurality of attributes, into the nouns it modifies. It just means "one" of whatever it modifies. But things have attributes that make them what they are, and so something in the quantity of "one" naturally includes its attributes. Whether or not God has real, subsisting attributes, as per Sunni Islam, is a theological issue, unrelated to the semantics of Echad afaict.

Nuances drawn out in Jewish mysticism do not speak to the level where confusion occurs in Deuteronomy 6:4, imho. It is a basic confusion about the Peshat-level significance of 'Echad' in context.

I can see where he is coming from in the above, in that Yachid means "single", which carries no implication beyond itself, whereas Echad is a numerical unit, and as such, is part of a continuum--a unity in relation to plurality. The Rabbi does not say that Echad itself is plural, but that it is a one which unifies pluralities; it is a one-for-many. I believe all philosophical monotheists agree that the world of many is in need of a one, and that this need is supplied by God. In no way does this necessitate that the one itself is many.

Also, as per Gesenius, Echad can also mean "one only of a kind" or unique.

In the Bible 'yachid' seems to have had negative connotations. It is used in the sense of "forlorn" or "dear," and also means "only-begotten," "only child." Imagine the heyday people would have if the Shema could be read that "YHWH is the only son"! :-S

In biblical Hebrew at least, Echad was the right word to use. Echad can have the meaning of "alone" or "exclusive uniqueness" cf. again Gesenius above. In Deut. 6:4 this is perhaps more likely than the numerical sense. A statement that YHWH is one YHWH in the numerical sense would be tautologous, because, as it has been somewhere remarked, anything is "one" inasmuch as it "is" at all. So, I think there is good reason to see the Shema as involving one of the other definitions of Echad, such as Gesenius' fifth definition.

We have to be careful about defining 'echad' too sharply in opposition to 'yachid.' In biblical usage they have seem to have overlapped some, and yachid had connotations that would not have been suitable for God. Additionally, the Tanach does not use Echad in the looser way that the Gospel of John does in John 10:30 and chapter 17. In John, there seems to be an idiom whereby neuter hen can serve in a weaker sense to signify unity or at-oneness; this also appears in Paul. We do not know what this idiom might translate from Jesus' Aramaic.

This sounds right.

Fractionism?? I think most religions have a bit to work on in that department... :-)

God bless,
ALAM: Shalom. Naiem meod!!
An interesting post. Todah rabba!!!

NonTrinitarian

February 7th 2006, 03:53 PM

FIRSTBORN Doesn't MEAN first CREATED!!!!!! Isaac is Abrahams FIRSTBORN according to YHWH... Yet Ishmael is Abrahams FIRST CHILD!!! Prototokos NEVER means first created but speaks of "PREEMINANCE".

See my post above to nick. Also, there are a few examples where one is placed as firstborn over another but allow me to quote "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" to address your point.

But before I do that, you might want to take back this statement.
"Prototokos NEVER means first created but speaks of "PREEMINANCE"
There are scores of verses in the LXX and NT that would beg to differ with you where firstborn (protokos) literally means the first child born, not preminance.

Now on to the quote from Brian Holt,

Trinitarians believe the term "firstborn of all creation" means Jesus is most sovereign, most distinguished, most high or head of creation. There are some examples in the OT where the term "firstborn" is used to designate a position where someone is the head of others or enjoys the privilege of being superior to others. (See Ps 89:27, Jer. 31:9, Ex 4:22, Gen 48:13-20) Manfred Brauch mentions these examples and then states that Paul is using the same meaning in Col. 1:15. He also states that Christ, though head over creation, is not part of creation. This argument does not have scriptural support in either the Old or New Testament. For instance, Ps 89:27 does show that David is the firstborn of the kings, yet at the same time, David is still a king.So while David is the head of the kings, he is still included among the group. In Jeremiah 31:9 and Ex 4:22, Israel is said to be the firstborn of the nations in relation to God but at the same time, it is still in the group of nations. Though Ephraim is placed as firstborn over his older brother Manassehm he is still one of the brothers. In each of these instances the firstborn, though meaning head of the group, is still part of the group. Thus, if we stick to the argument used by Trinitarians, even if the term firstborn, when used with Jesus, means he is head of creation instead of the first of creation, he is still part of the creation. There are no examples of someone not being part of the like group that he is firstborn over. Holt, pg 249, Tellway Publishing, 2002

So prove him wrong.

NonTrinitarian

February 7th 2006, 03:58 PM

Nah. I was never looking at it from the chronological perspective. That was Topher's position. If they want to keep that position, then let them draw out the ramifications. The Col. 1 passage is speaking of position however and not of chronology.
And I don't necessarily have a problem with it being position rather than chronology. See my quote of Holt above to Old Monk.

After all, the NWT had to add the word "other" in four times to avoid what the passage was teaching.
Want me to quote a bunch of Bibles that add words to the text in numerous verses? Shoot, I'll even limit it to the word "other"

As for your last point, I would simply ask then if God has always been loving or if at one time he began to love.

This is a non-answer but I understand why. What could you possibly reply with? As for your question, it is irrelevent because no verse says "Love is the firstborn of God's qualities."

But I will answer in that God has always been love. (This is when you ask me 'who did he love before Jesus was born?')

Topherlee

February 7th 2006, 04:03 PM

apostoli
Hi Topherlee,

Ah good! We agree on some elementary truth.

Elementary truth is something that has been blurred by teachings of the Trinity. There is no longer one true God but a family of gods.

Neither verse says so (regarding Rev 3:14, Col 1:15) it is your interpretation. Fair enough!

It says so, it is just ignored;
Rev 3:14 ...the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Jesus was the beginning of Gods creation. And the world and everything else came into existence through Jesus. He was the Firstborn of every creature.

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Jesus was the firstborn which can be literal or could imply chosen. Who was Jesus chosen among? Every creature. Why compare Jesus to a creature? Why was he chosen(firstborn) among the creatures? Because he himself was a created being.

But lets also look at Col 1:18 "the firstborn from the dead, that in all things [Jesus] might have pre-eminence". How do you understand pre-eminence?

Let's finish that; Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
Jehovah God the Father was pleased in his Christ. This is why the fulness of God dwell in him. Now just ponder on that verse. What if God was not pleased with Jesus. Would the fulness of God still dwell within him?

Don't relate that to your district overseer. You'll be disfellowshiped. Two reasons: it is a modalist teaching and secondly it is not a teaching of the faithful and discreet slave.

Do not think that I am a part of any congregation.

See 1 John 4:2.

1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

There is no argument that Jesus is of God. The verse does not imply that he is God. Are you of God? Spiritually or physically? All things are of God. He is God our Creator; our Father.

Why do you call a someone your father? Because he gave you life. Elementarily speaking of course.

Shadow Phoenix

February 7th 2006, 04:05 PM

Want me to quote a bunch of Bibles that add words to the text in numerous verses? Shoot, I'll even limit it to the word "other"

No. I want to know why they should include it within the text.

This is a non-answer but I understand why. What could you possibly reply with? As for your question, it is irrelevent because no verse says "Love is the firstborn of God's qualities."

But I will answer in that God has always been love. (This is when you ask me 'who did he love before Jesus was born?')

Yes. What God essentially is, he is eternally. Who was he loving?

NonTrinitarian

February 7th 2006, 04:05 PM

Once again the FIRSTBORN = FIRST CREATED!!! NO!!! The Greek word speaks of "PREEMINANCE" Was Jesus the "firstborn from the dead" YES if you speak of preeminance. NO if you mean that he is the first to rise from the dead... Elijahs raising of the boy and Jesus raising of Lazereth DEFINATELY preceeded Jesus in time!!! They didn't preceed him in preeminance though!!! So when you read that WATCHTOWERISM in your NWT you must ask yourself if you are taking in ACURATE KNOWLEDGE... if not then your own theology condems you!!

Well, you didn't consider all the options. Jesus is the "firstborn from the dead". Note it says "FROM" the dead, not "OF" the dead. True, others have been resurrected but not in the manner Jesus was. The boy, Lazareth, etc all died again. Jesus didn't. That proves it is a specific type of resurrection Jesus is referring to. The permanent kind, not the temporary kind displayed a few times on earth. So Jesus is literally the "firstborn FROM the dead"

And after seeing you, Nick and others flop around in what I consider pathetic attempts at rebuttals, I'd say the WT is doing a pretty good job of giving out accurate information.

NonTrinitarian

February 7th 2006, 04:11 PM

No. I want to know why they should include it within the text.
Actually, it doesn't need to be in there as it is already implied. Just like some bibles don't put the term "other" in certain verses while other Bibles do. The NWT could have left it out and the "other" would still have been implied since there are NO examples of someone not being part of the group he is firstborn of. By default Jesus has to be part of creation if we stick to every known meaning of the phrase "firstborn of..."

Yes. What God essentially is, he is eternally. Who was he loving?

Do you want me to show you verses where the Bible said God loves himself? What about verses that say we should love ourselves too? So if God says he loves himself, and he is eternal, I guess his love would be eternal. Don't you think?

NOTICE TO PEOPLE READING THIS!
Look people, I don't want to sound like some sales man for TellWay Publishing and the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?", but you Trinitarians need to read it. It covers basically every argument I've ever had thrown at me by Trinitarians here at TWeb. You all need to get a copy and get a clue. Come back with something more difficult to refute.

Shadow Phoenix

February 7th 2006, 04:20 PM

Actually, it doesn't need to be in there as it is already implied. Just like some bibles don't put the term "other" in certain verses while other Bibles do. The NWT could have left it out and the "other" would still have been implied since there are NO examples of someone not being part of the group he is firstborn of. By default Jesus has to be part of creation if we stick to every known meaning of the phrase "firstborn of..."

Odd. The best grammarians of Greek haven't seen it as implied. I would say again that the word there implies a position of preeminence over the group.

Do you want me to show you verses where the Bible said God loves himself? What about verses that say we should love ourselves too? So if God says he loves himself, and he is eternal, I guess his love would be eternal. Don't you think?

Um. No. Those wouldn't establish the point since love is relational in nature anyhow. If you think love consists in loving yourself, then you have a shallow view of love. God's love is the most awesome love of all and is entirely relational. Thus, who was he in a relationship of love with?

NonTrinitarian

February 7th 2006, 04:41 PM

Odd. The best grammarians of Greek haven't seen it as implied. I would say again that the word there implies a position of preeminence over the group.
Would these grammarians be Trinitarians? Hmm.

Um. No. Those wouldn't establish the point since love is relational in nature anyhow. If you think love consists in loving yourself, then you have a shallow view of love. God's love is the most awesome love of all and is entirely relational. Thus, who was he in a relationship of love with?

Oh, so all those verses where God says he loves himself, that he loves his name. That's just God being shallow? And when Jesus said we are to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, he was just telling us to shallowly love our neighbor?

Well, what else should I have expected from you? I mean, after all, you offered an argument not supported by scripture (you must have someone to love in order to have love). Where did you get that "rule" from? Some dorky/desperate Trinitarian book? What verse is that argument based on? Because I've got scriptures where God clearly says he loves HIMSELF. That's not my opinion, that's not some rule I just grabbed out of the air. It's been in the bible for thousands of years. Thank Jehovah and his Son Jesus for Jehovah's Witnesses! It's so good to see the truth.

Moving on to the next guy.

Shadow Phoenix

February 7th 2006, 05:02 PM

Would these grammarians be Trinitarians? Hmm.

I'm sorry. Does this count as a refutation in some circles?

Oh, so all those verses where God says he loves himself, that he loves his name. That's just God being shallow? And when Jesus said we are to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, he was just telling us to shallowly love our neighbor?

Oh no. But a love that is purely individual is such. It is good and proper to love yourself, but love in its essence is relational.

Well, what else should I have expected from you? I mean, after all, you offered an argument not supported by scripture (you must have someone to love in order to have love). Where did you get that "rule" from? Some dorky/desperate Trinitarian book? What verse is that argument based on? Because I've got scriptures where God clearly says he loves HIMSELF. That's not my opinion, that's not some rule I just grabbed out of the air. It's been in the bible for thousands of years. Thank Jehovah and his Son Jesus for Jehovah's Witnesses! It's so good to see the truth.

Moving on to the next guy.

And it won't make me flinch a bit to see these verses. I will still contend that love is relational in nature. I'd then go on to say that God is relational in his nature seeing as we are relational in our nature and we cannot have a good attribute that is immaterial that is not rooted in a good creator.

MichaelCadry

February 7th 2006, 08:58 PM

Dear All,

There is NOT A CHANCE that Jesus, God's Son, is also the archangel Michael. It is written in the Bible that Jesus, the Son of God, shall be higher than the angels, who will be subject to Him. If you want to know the truth, Jesus and Jehovah are the same name. Jesus is being trained to take Jehovah's place as a rod of iron over the earth so that Jehovah, our God, can enter into His rest. This means Jesus and those who are chosen to rule with Him shall rule the earth, and then, any questions or problems that arise that need an answer from the Lord God shall be given to Jesus and those who help rule the earth and the Lord God shall give Him answers and direction. I know I'm not explaining this well enough, but it is written in Revelation, chapter 1 or 2, that Jesus said, "And I will give you a rod and you shall rule the earth, even as I have received from My Father." Something to that effect. See Revelation 2:27!!

Will chat with you later. God's Best!!

MichaelCadry

Pythagoras

February 7th 2006, 11:21 PM

(Knowing you won't be able to find one, I'll jump to the conclusion) Since in no other instance in the Bible is someone said to be firstborn of a group and not be included in the group, it is blatantly obvious Trinitarian bias is needed to say Jesus is not part of the group of creation he is firstborn of.
.

Unfortunately for trinitarians, Col.1:15 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" cooks their goose, as it establishes beyond a shadow of doubt that Jesus is partitive of creation.

best wishes,

Pythagoras

February 7th 2006, 11:47 PM

Hi Nickey,

Oh no. But a love that is purely individual is such. It is good and proper to love yourself, but love in its essence is relational.

And it won't make me flinch a bit to see these verses. I will still contend that love is relational in nature. I'd then go on to say that God is relational in his nature seeing as we are relational in our nature and we cannot have a good attribute that is immaterial that is not rooted in a good creator.

This is sad , you're not understanding the nature of Gods' love. Do you know that God loved the Saints even before they were created? ! If we adopt your point of view, this should be impossible because to you God's love is "relational", or limited to persons immediately on hand.

Here's some food for thought:

Ephesians 1:4 "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy without blame before Him in love."

God loved Christ Jesus in the same manner:

John 17:24 Father, I desire that they also whom you gave me may be with me where I am... for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

In short, the Saints were known of and loved by God even before their creation, just like Jesus Christ:

Matt. 25:34 Come you blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

On another note, scripture never mentions love betwen the father, son and holy spirit, but only love between the father and son. I call this the peeping Tom syndrom.

best wishes,

Pythagoras

February 7th 2006, 11:49 PM

Hi Michael,

There is NOT A CHANCE that Jesus, God's Son, is also the archangel Michael.

I tend to agree. By the same token, there is not a chance that Jesus is God. Infact the latter hypothesis is infinitely more ridiculous, in my opinion.

best wishes,

apostoli

February 8th 2006, 02:26 AM

Hi NonTrinitarian,

See my post above to nick. Also, there are a few examples where one is placed as firstborn over another but allow me to quote "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" to address your point.

But before I do that, you might want to take back this statement.
"Prototokos NEVER means first created but speaks of "PREEMINANCE"
There are scores of verses in the LXX and NT that would beg to differ with you where firstborn (protokos) literally means the first child born, not preminance.

Now on to the quote from Brian Holt,
Holt, pg 249, Tellway Publishing, 2002

So prove him wrong.Exodus 4:22!

apostoli

February 8th 2006, 02:45 AM

Hi MichaelCadry,

Dear All,

There is NOT A CHANCE that Jesus, God's Son, is also the archangel Michael. It is written in the Bible that Jesus, the Son of God, shall be higher than the angels, who will be subject to Him. If you want to know the truth, Jesus and Jehovah are the same name. Jesus is being trained to take Jehovah's place as a rod of iron over the earth so that Jehovah, our God, can enter into His rest. This means Jesus and those who are chosen to rule with Him shall rule the earth, and then, any questions or problems that arise that need an answer from the Lord God shall be given to Jesus and those who help rule the earth and the Lord God shall give Him answers and direction. I know I'm not explaining this well enough, but it is written in Revelation, chapter 1 or 2, that Jesus said, "And I will give you a rod and you shall rule the earth, even as I have received from My Father." Something to that effect. See Revelation 2:27!!Who appeared to Moses in the burning bush?
Exodus 3:2

Bill the Cat

February 8th 2006, 09:14 AM

Unfortunately for trinitarians, Col.1:15 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" cooks their goose, as it establishes beyond a shadow of doubt that Jesus is partitive of creation.

best wishes,

:hrm: I thought Non-Trin said that firstborn was always a part of the whole, so Jesus is every creature?

Phantaz did a nice job critiquing Holt, who he considers a good friend, including the "firstborn"
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/holtb01.html

Oldmonk

February 8th 2006, 12:02 PM

aaaaAnd I don't necessarily have a problem with it being position rather than chronology. See my quote of Holt above to Old Monk.

Want me to quote a bunch of Bibles that add words to the text in numerous verses? Shoot, I'll even limit it to the word "other"

The words added are marked and do not change the context of the verse as your bible does. In many cases the word is assumed in the Hebrew or Greek ie. a dog in Hebrew is just the word dog since Hebrew doesn't have a indefinate article...so I AM HE is just "Ani (I) hu ( he)". Also in the talmud rabbi's warn against such practices and INSIST that ANY interpretation must conform to the PLAIN meaning of the text. The NWT adding "other" distorts the plain meaning of the text and is done PURELY for theological reasons... Just as 'degel' is translated as "three tribe division" instead of FLAG or banner...Actually the NWT got it right in Songs of Sol. 2:4!!!! So if they got it right there how did they not in the other spots??? And why do JW's not go to war when it says that YHWH is a man of war right in their own bible???

This is a non-answer but I understand why. What could you possibly reply with? As for your question, it is irrelevent because no verse says "Love is the firstborn of God's qualities."

But I will answer in that God has always been love. (This is when you ask me 'who did he love before Jesus was born?')

Oldmonk

February 8th 2006, 12:08 PM

Ah yes. It's amazing how the rule applies when you want it to but doesn't when you don't.

Exactly. Just shows the weakness of what they say :teeth:

Oldmonk

February 8th 2006, 12:14 PM

Unfortunately for trinitarians, Col.1:15 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" cooks their goose, as it establishes beyond a shadow of doubt that Jesus is partitive of creation.

best wishes,

ONLY if you take a distorted view of Firstborn!!! How could anybody be in the IMAGE of God and not be GOD??? We were formen in his image true enoughbut we do not have his glory or essence... and if you wanted to take your argument to rediculous you would have to say that Jesus was the first invisable man!!!If the image you are representing is unseen how do you represent it with something seen??? That is like sculpting an invisible dog out of clay...you have changed its essence by making it visible!!!

Oldmonk

February 8th 2006, 12:25 PM

Well, you didn't consider all the options. Jesus is the "firstborn from the dead". Note it says "FROM" the dead, not "OF" the dead. True, others have been resurrected but not in the manner Jesus was. The boy, Lazareth, etc all died again. Jesus didn't. That proves it is a specific type of resurrection Jesus is referring to. The permanent kind, not the temporary kind displayed a few times on earth. So Jesus is literally the "firstborn FROM the dead"

And after seeing you, Nick and others flop around in what I consider pathetic attempts at rebuttals, I'd say the WT is doing a pretty good job of giving out accurate information.

And what happened to the body of Christ after the resurrection?!? Did it turn into gasses as the Watchtower suggests?!? Is it still in heaven... his BODY I am refering to.
"He that HAS the SON has LIFE. He that has NOT the SON has not life but the wrath of God abideth on him. "
Is that to say that any who do not believe on the Son do not have EXISTANCE???
What is your definition of resurection but being revived FROM THE DEAD?!?
Did not the boy and Lazereth come back FROM the dead??? It is true that the nature of the resurrection is not the same but if you are going to say that "firstborn from the dead" means the first to rise from the dead then you have still to answer my question and not try simantic games with the text.

NonTrinitarian

February 8th 2006, 12:29 PM

:hrm: I thought Non-Trin said that firstborn was always a part of the whole, so Jesus is every creature?

Phantaz did a nice job critiquing Holt, who he considers a good friend, including the "firstborn"
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/holtb01.html

Bill, you're smarter than this idiotic statement. I'm disappointed. I said the firstborn is always part of the group. If I say 'of all of pharoah's house, (or of all creation) the prince is firstborn' (or Jesus is firstborn), no one in his right mind would think the prince is all of Pharoah's children (or that Jesus is all of creation).

I read the review by Phantaz. If that's the best Trinitarians can come up with, Holt needs to win a pultzer prize. The review reminds me of a madman rambling. Half of the crap he wrote you can't even make sense of. How much more clearer are Jesus' words, and Holt's discussion of them. But when you don't have much of an argument to put forth, rambling seems to quite the choir.

NonTrinitarian

February 8th 2006, 12:33 PM

Hi NonTrinitarian,

Exodus 4:22!

Holt dealt with this verse and I quoted it. I'll requote again then you can try again.

Trinitarians believe the term "firstborn of all creation" means Jesus is most sovereign, most distinguished, most high or head of creation. There are some examples in the OT where the term "firstborn" is used to designate a position where someone is the head of others or enjoys the privilege of being superior to others. (See Ps 89:27, Jer. 31:9, Ex 4:22, Gen 48:13-20) Manfred Brauch mentions these examples and then states that Paul is using the same meaning in Col. 1:15. He also states that Christ, though head over creation, is not part of creation. This argument does not have scriptural support in either the Old or New Testament. For instance, Ps 89:27 does show that David is the firstborn of the kings, yet at the same time, David is still a king.So while David is the head of the kings, he is still included among the group. In Jeremiah 31:9 and Ex 4:22, Israel is said to be the firstborn of the nations in relation to God but at the same time, it is still in the group of nations. Though Ephraim is placed as firstborn over his older brother Manassehm he is still one of the brothers. In each of these instances the firstborn, though meaning head of the group, is still part of the group. Thus, if we stick to the argument used by Trinitarians, even if the term firstborn, when used with Jesus, means he is head of creation instead of the first of creation, he is still part of the creation. There are no examples of someone not being part of the like group that he is firstborn over.

Unless Israel isn't a nation. Did I miss something? Nah, but I think you did. No one has yet provided one scripture the firstborn is not part of the group it is firstborn of.

NonTrinitarian

February 8th 2006, 12:38 PM

And what happened to the body of Christ after the resurrection?!? Did it turn into gasses as the Watchtower suggests?!? Is it still in heaven... his BODY I am refering to.
"He that HAS the SON has LIFE. He that has NOT the SON has not life but the wrath of God abideth on him. "
Is that to say that any who do not believe on the Son do not have EXISTANCE???
What is your definition of resurection but being revived FROM THE DEAD?!?
Did not the boy and Lazereth come back FROM the dead??? It is true that the nature of the resurrection is not the same but if you are going to say that "firstborn from the dead" means the first to rise from the dead then you have still to answer my question and not try simantic games with the text.

I did answer it but aparantly your too dense to comprehend it. There ARE different types of resurrections. (Biting my tongue because I don't want Crusader to jump all over me for exploding at the stupidity around here). Read 1 Cor 15:35-49. Lazarus didn't experience THAT kind of resurrection. Jesus did. He was the Firstborn of the dead servants of God to experience this HEAVENLY resurection. (I'll await for you to tell me others were resurrected to heaven before Jesus before I shoot that idea down).

Bill the Cat

February 8th 2006, 12:39 PM

Bill, you're smarter than this idiotic statement. I'm disappointed. I said the firstborn is always part of the group. If I say 'of all of pharoah's house, (or of all creation) the prince is firstborn' (or Jesus is firstborn), no one in his right mind would think the prince is all of Pharoah's children (or that Jesus is all of creation).

I read the review by Phantaz. If that's the best Trinitarians can come up with, Holt needs to win a pultzer prize. The review reminds me of a madman rambling. Half of the crap he wrote you can't even make sense of. How much more clearer are Jesus' words, and Holt's discussion of them. But when you don't have much of an argument to put forth, rambling seems to quite the choir.
I was saying that in order to be consistent to Holt's interpretation, Jesus would have to be like all creation, not just one part of it (man).

And as far as Phantaz's review, Holt himself has a far higher impression of it:

First, I appreciate your allowing me to view part of the write up. I think you cover your points well and make clear the viewpoints of many Trinitarians. I admit I had to break out the dictionary in order to understand half the sentences but I've never been one for big words! Trinitarians who want a deeper understanding of their doctrine (unlike those who repeat John 1:1 like a broken record) will benefit and be educated by your article. You certainly did your homework in compiling quotes from many authors, which serve to strengthen your position. As you know, I have read Bauckham and am familiar with his arguments and I think they are flawed in a number of areas. I have not read the others though perhaps I will some day.

I believe the books you referenced, this essay and also Mr. Holding's work on "Wisdom", along with "Jesus-God or the Son of God?", will provide all people a balanced understanding of the arguments from both sides. Obviously there can be and are more questions and arguments both sides can raise regarding this issue but one should be able to form a good opinion from these sources. And of course, we both agree the Bible is the greatest source of information on this subject. Some will follow Trinitarian logic, some non-Trinitarian logic, but all benefit when they more fully understand opposing positions. Maybe in a revision of "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" I will be able to address your arguments presented here. I would have to do some more reading first!

Regards,

Brian Holt

Your response to it was a non-answer. If the author of the book thought it was a quality critique, then it goes a lot farther than your objection to it

apostoli

February 8th 2006, 02:55 PM

Hi Pythagoras,

Augustine's idea, as I understand it, is that a man's and woman's mutual love is a reflection of the unity of love that the Father and Son express toward each other. The holy unifying spirit being the joining force. Poetically, who can disagree.That's what Augustine says. But he conveniently forgets that the holy spirit is another person(according to the triniy doctrine)To some extent, I may have misrepresented Augustine - he does indeed acknowledge the Holy Spirit as a person.

Augustine is a hard read, but to my mind, his writings are that of a philosopher/poet as opposed to a rigorous theologian. To my mind, he is more interested in concepts. At least in this regard he is worth a read. If nothing else his final book, XV, in his "On the Trinity" which sums up all the others. Here are a couple of quotes, that might give an inkling of his mind...
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130115.htm

"It was next inquired, in what way they are called one essence, three persons, or by some Greeks one essence, three substances; and we found that the words were so used through the needs of speech, that there might be one term by which to answer, when it is asked what the three are, whom we truly confess to be three, viz. Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. In the eighth [book],...I have pointed out, that by means of the truth, which is beheld by the understanding, and by means of the highest good, from which is all good, and by means of the righteousness for which a righteous mind is loved even by a mind not yet righteous, we might understand, so far as it is possible to understand, that not only incorporeal but also unchangeable nature which is God; and by means, too, of love, which in the Holy Scriptures is called God, by which, first of all, those who have understanding begin also, however feebly, to discern the Trinity, to wit, one that loves, and that which is loved, and love."

"And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. But the Father gave Him this too, not as to one already existing, and not yet having it; but whatever He gave to the only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting Him. Therefore He so begat Him as that the common Gift should proceed from Him also, and the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both. This distinction, then, of the inseparable Trinity is not to be merely accepted in passing, but to be carefully considered; for hence it was that the Word of God was specially called also the Wisdom of God, although both Father and Holy Spirit are wisdom. If, then, any one of the three is to be specially called Love, what more fitting than that it should be the Holy Spirit?--namely, that in that simple and highest nature, substance should not be one thing and love another, but that substance itself should be love, and love itself should be substance, whether in the Father, or in the Son, or in the Holy Spirit; and yet that the Holy Spirit should be specially called Love."

and not just a joining force or a witness of the father's and son's interdependent love. If the father and son share in this "mutual love" and the holy spirit is just a peeping Tom of sorts, isn't the person of the holy spirit unloved, or at the very least not loved to the same capacity/degree as the other two persons?You have to read Augustine to understand him. His premise is "God is love", and to my mind, to him, the Holy Spirit is the manifestation of that love, just as Jesus is the manifestation of the "power and wisdom" of God.

I see Augustine as the philosopher/poet, not as a theologian. To my mind, his concern was not defining the trinity as such but explaining its relevance. Thus the Holy Spirit, isn't "unloved" but is the love itself. Not a "peeping Tom of sorts" but the mutual participation of the Father and Son within each other, and the participation of the Father and Son in us (cp: Jn 17:21-23; & great wack of A.Paul's epistles).

We don't have to agree with him, to appreciate his thoughts. As we would any poet

Crudly put, you end up with an orgy in this conception, and not a perfect manifestation of love, in my opinion. Don't they say three's a crowd?Depends on whether one sees love as inclusive or exclusive. To quote A.John

"Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and everyone that loves is born of God and knows God." (1 Jn 4:7)

apostoli

February 8th 2006, 03:26 PM

Hi NonTrinitarian,

So prove him wrong.Exodus 4:22!Did I miss something?Yep! Verse 23 (see below)

Holt dealt with this verse and I quoted it. I'll requote again then you can try again.

"In Jeremiah 31:9 and Ex 4:22, Israel is said to be the firstborn of the nations in relation to God but at the same time, it is still in the group of nations."

Unless Israel isn't a nation. Did I miss something? Nah, but I think you did. No one has yet provided one scripture the firstborn is not part of the group it is firstborn of.At Exodus 4:22-23 Israel is not contrasted to the the nations but to the firstborn sons (children) of Egypt. From the New World Translation...

"And you must say to Pharaoh, 'This is what Jehovah has said: Israel is my son, my firstborn. And I say to you: Send my son away that he may serve me. But should you refuse to send him away, here I am killing your son, your firstborn." (Ex 4:22-23)

You really need to understand what firstborn meant at Ex 4:22-23. Think on the following...

"Among the Egyptians the firstborn were dedicated as sacred to the sun-god Amon-Ra, the supposed preserver of all the firstborn"

See the WTS publication "Insight on the scriptures" pages 835-836.

Pythagoras

February 8th 2006, 03:53 PM

Hi Oldmonk,

ONLY if you take a distorted view of Firstborn!!! How could anybody be in the IMAGE of God and not be GOD???

Well then, we would have to conclude Adam is God because he was made in God's image,if you mean what you say and say what you mean, that is !

Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:.."

We were formen in his image true enoughbut we do not have his glory or essence

I was right, you don't mean what you say..

Oldmonk, if Christ is the "image of God"( and he is, 2 Cor. 4:4) , then
he cannot also be God because of the way the phrase "image of God" functions in the bible.

Consider Genesis 5:3, as an example:

"When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image, and he named him Seth."

The only way you're right is if Seth as image of Adam means Seth is essentially( or in essence) Adam. Do you believe that? Otherwise the biblical use of the phrase "image of -- (someone) " doe not conform to your 4th century trinitarian eisegesis. All I'm asking for here is some consistency.

best wishes,

Oldmonk

February 8th 2006, 04:00 PM

I did answer it but aparantly your too dense to comprehend it. There ARE different types of resurrections. (Biting my tongue because I don't want Crusader to jump all over me for exploding at the stupidity around here). Read 1 Cor 15:35-49. Lazarus didn't experience THAT kind of resurrection. Jesus did. He was the Firstborn of the dead servants of God to experience this HEAVENLY resurection. (I'll await for you to tell me others were resurrected to heaven before Jesus before I shoot that idea down).

I already stated that the resurections were not on the same level!!!! BUT tell me this ! Where in the bible does it talk about a resurrection WITHOUT A BODY,as the Watchtower claims ...OR do I have to read you your OWN LITERATURE for you and TOO you!?!?Not only that did not Elisha and Enoch preceed Jesus to heaven??? I will await your regurgitation of the Watchtower on this one.

Oldmonk

February 8th 2006, 04:09 PM

Hi Oldmonk,

Well then, we would have to conclude Adam is God because he was made in God's image,if you mean what you say and say what you mean, that is !

Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:.."

I was right, you don't mean what you say..

Oldmonk, if Christ is the "image of God"( and he is, 2 Cor. 4:4) , then
he cannot also be God because of the way the phrase "image of God" functions in the bible.

Consider Genesis 5:3, as an example:

"When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image, and he named him Seth."

The only way you're right is if Seth as image of Adam means Seth is essentially( or in essence) Adam. Do you believe that? Otherwise the biblical use of the phrase "image of -- (someone) " doe not not conform to your 4th century trinitarian eisegesis. All I'm asking for here is some consistency.

best wishes,
You didn't read my post did you?? We were FASHIONED in the likeness of God...JESUS had that by NATURE ie. ESSENCE!!! He had the FULLNESS of God in him BODILY!!! Yes Seth is of the same ESSENCE as Adam. Read a definition of ESSENCE!! It speaks of NATURE... ie. Seth was as fully human as Adam!!! I have been quite consistant in my use of essence but you seem to keep confusing it with other aspects. Was Seth Adam...of course not !! Was Adam as HUMAN ( Now we are speaking of ESSENCE ) as Adam ??? YES!!!!Personality has NOTHING to do with ESSENCE. Position has nothing to do with ESSENCE. What is the NATURE of the beast has EVERYTHING to do with essence!!!

Pythagoras

February 8th 2006, 04:13 PM

Hi Oldmonk,

You didn't read my post did you??... !!!

More like you didn't read my post. .. Try reading it once more and come back with a real response.

best wishes,

Oldmonk

February 8th 2006, 04:17 PM

Hi Oldmonk,

More like you didn't read my post. .. Try reading it once more and come back with a real response.

best wishes,

PLEASE LOOK up ESSENCE in the DICTINARY!!! Likeness and image have NOTHING to do with ESSENCE!!!! A twin may or may not LOOK IDENTICAL BUT regardless their ESSENCE is the SAME!!! ESSENCE doesn't demand an exact copy!!!

Pythagoras

February 8th 2006, 05:08 PM

Hi Oldmonk,

PLEASE LOOK up ESSENCE in the DICTINARY!!! Likeness and image have NOTHING to do with ESSENCE!!!! A twin may or may not LOOK IDENTICAL BUT regardless their ESSENCE is the SAME!!! ESSENCE doesn't demand an exact copy!!!

You're still missing the boat.. Let's try once more:

Jesus as "God" because he's the same "ESSENCE !!!! as God" is neither here nor there since it could be argued that this sort of argument is 4th century trinitarian eisegesis. Let us just work with the undisputable facts on hand.

Here goes:
2 Cor. 4:4 says Jesus is God's image. Genesis 5:3 says Seth is Adam's image.

The way the phrase "image of Adam" is used in gen. 5:3 is probative to showing that Jesus could not have been God, otherwsie, to be consistent , we would have to conclude that Seth was Adam, or that he was essentially Adam. Without bringing your own 4th century trinitarian ideas of "essence" into the argument, and allowing verses like 2 Cor. 4:4 and Gen. 5:3 to stand on their own when they say Jesus is God's image and seth is Adam's image, would you agree or disagree with the above argument?

best wishes,

Topherlee

February 8th 2006, 05:16 PM

PLEASE LOOK up ESSENCE in the DICTINARY!!! Likeness and image have NOTHING to do with ESSENCE!!!! A twin may or may not LOOK IDENTICAL BUT regardless their ESSENCE is the SAME!!! ESSENCE doesn't demand an exact copy!!!

I agree with Py, very good point;
if Christ is the "image of God"( and he is, 2 Cor. 4:4) , then
he cannot also be God because of the way the phrase "image of God" functions in the bible.

Oldmonk, the more you argue that Jesus is the essence of what God is, the more you support his (Jesus) creation. God is God, He is not an essence. God has given us the ability to create. Not only human reproduction, but automobiles, houses, and so on. Are they in essence human? A car can be compared to the human body. It needs fuel (food), it needs water, needs to be maintained, and needs to be mobile. But it is not in essence human.
Jesus is the beginning of creation of God (Rev 3:14).
Genesis 1:26 says "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"... We know that we are not the Almighty God, but Jesus is referenced as the same in that Jesus is to be the image of the invisible God.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God,. So we know Jesus is a spirit - invisible. John 4:24 God is a Spirit: But he is not in essence God - but image.
Image NOUN: 1. A reproduction of the form of a person or object, especially a sculptured likeness

Are not all angels spirits? Trinitarians hold to the theory that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are all fully God. How many spirit gods are there? Is not God himself Holy? How are all three spirits one God?

NonTrinitarian

February 8th 2006, 05:44 PM

Hi NonTrinitarian,

Yep! Verse 23 (see below)

At Exodus 4:22-23 Israel is not contrasted to the the nations but to the firstborn sons (children) of Egypt. From the New World Translation...

"And you must say to Pharaoh, 'This is what Jehovah has said: Israel is my son, my firstborn. And I say to you: Send my son away that he may serve me. But should you refuse to send him away, here I am killing your son, your firstborn." (Ex 4:22-23)

You really need to understand what firstborn meant at Ex 4:22-23. Think on the following...

"Among the Egyptians the firstborn were dedicated as sacred to the sun-god Amon-Ra, the supposed preserver of all the firstborn"

See the WTS publication "Insight on the scriptures" pages 835-836.

Let me break it down for you a little more. God is contrasting his firstborn son, Israel, a NATION, with Egypt, also a Nation. God has chosen the NATION of Israel over the NATION of Egypt. The NATION of Israel is God's firstborn, his preeminate, the head, the chosen one out of all the OTHER NATIONS. I know firstborn in those verses means, chosen over, made head, selected highest, however you want to interpret it. Holt said as much himself. But he and I, unlike you apparantly, recognize that Israel is in a group and is placed over, or in highest favor with God, over all others in that group. That group is the NATIONS of different persons, of which Israel was placed as firstborn of.

PS- your reference to the WT publication has no bearing on the fact that the group Israel is raised over are all the other nations and that it itself is also a nation.

apostoli

February 8th 2006, 05:47 PM

Hi Topherlee,

I agree with Py, very good point;
if Christ is the "image of God"( and he is, 2 Cor. 4:4) , then
he cannot also be God because of the way the phrase "image of God" functions in the bible.

Oldmonk, the more you argue that Jesus is the essence of what God is, the more you support his (Jesus) creation. God is God, He is not an essence. God has given us the ability to create. Not only human reproduction, but automobiles, houses, and so on. Are they in essence human? A car can be compared to the human body. It needs fuel (food), it needs water, needs to be maintained, and needs to be mobile. But it is not in essence human.
Jesus is the beginning of creation of God (Rev 3:14).
Genesis 1:26 says "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"... We know that we are not the Almighty God, but Jesus is referenced as the same in that Jesus is to be the image of the invisible God.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God,. So we know Jesus is a spirit - invisible. John 4:24 God is a Spirit: But he is not in essence God - but image.
Image NOUN: 1. A reproduction of the form of a person or object, especially a sculptured likeness

Are not all angels spirits? Trinitarians hold to the theory that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are all fully God. How many spirit gods are there? Is not God himself Holy? How are all three spirits one God?
Hebrews 1:3 contrast Jesus to man (ie: Gen 1:26) in as much as he (Jesus)is "charaktar autos", "

Stong's lexicon=precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile

KJV = the express image of his person
NWT = exact representation of his very being

Interestingly A.Paul then says "[Jesus] sustains all things by the word of his power" (NWT)

If nothing else, whatever you personally conceive of God, A.Paul can only be seen as saying, the same is conceived of Jesus - Jesus even sustains all things by the word of his own power!

Heb 1:3 gives a stronger representation than say Col 1:15 where eikon=image is used. eikon=one in whom the likeness of another is seen
given Col 1:16 it is evident in what way Jesus is the image of his Father.

eikon is also used of Jesus at 2 Cor 4:4 and its application to Jesus is in verses 4 to 6.

NonTrinitarian

February 8th 2006, 05:47 PM

I already stated that the resurections were not on the same level!!!! BUT tell me this ! Where in the bible does it talk about a resurrection WITHOUT A BODY,as the Watchtower claims ...OR do I have to read you your OWN LITERATURE for you and TOO you!?!?
Quote ONE WT article that says people are resurrected without a body. I'll await your humble admission you can't find one.

Not only that did not Elisha and Enoch preceed Jesus to heaven??? I will await your regurgitation of the Watchtower on this one.

How about I regurgitate Jesus? "No man has entered into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the son of man."

Did you know that AFTER Elijha (not elisha) was taken off by the chariot he later wrote a letter to a king. Unless they have real paper and pencil in heaven, he would have done that on earth. See also Acts 2:44

apostoli

February 8th 2006, 06:03 PM

Quote ONE WT article that says people are resurrected without a body. I'll await your humble admission you can't find one.Insight on the Scriptures - page 785 & 786 - "And his resurrection was 'in the spirit', to life in heaven (1 Pe 3:18). Moreover he was raised to a higher form of life..."

NB: In the WTS, it depends on the class of people you belong to.

apostoli

February 8th 2006, 06:23 PM

Hi NonTrinitarian,

Let me break it down for you a little more. God is contrasting his firstborn son, Israel, a NATION, with Egypt, also a Nation. God has chosen the NATION of Israel over the NATION of Egypt. The NATION of Israel is God's firstborn, his preeminate, the head, the chosen one out of all the OTHER NATIONS. I know firstborn in those verses means, chosen over, made head, selected highest, however you want to interpret it. Holt said as much himself. But he and I, unlike you apparantly, recognize that Israel is in a group and is placed over, or in highest favor with God, over all others in that group. That group is the NATIONS of different persons, of which Israel was placed as firstborn of.

PS- your reference to the WT publication has no bearing on the fact that the group Israel is raised over are all the other nations and that it itself is also a nation.Now if we were discussing Deut 7:6 and the meaning of what occured as a retrospect (cp: Deut 6:20-25) you'd be correct.

However, Exodus 4:22-23 is YHWH's message to Pharoah "this is my firstborn" , those dedicated to me, release them or I'll slay your "firstborn" those dedicated to Amon-Ra.. YHWH was not talking about the nation of Egypt, as Moses well attests - it was the human firstborn sons of Egypt that died! As the WTS publication noted, it was a contest between YHWH and the false god's of Pharoah.

You attribute "firstborn" to a class. Which I don't dispute. However, the class is not "nation". As even the WTS would emphasise to you.

If anything, the class is "inheritors".

I know firstborn in those verses means, chosen over, made head, selected highest, however you want to interpret it.Which goes to show, you don't know what firstborn means as regard to the Israelites. They were not chosen over, made head etc - they have no authority over the other nations. (contrast Col 1:15-19). However, as Deut 7 :6 says "YHWH has chosen you to be a special people unto himself"

NonTrinitarian

February 8th 2006, 06:59 PM

Insight on the Scriptures - page 785 & 786 - "And his resurrection was 'in the spirit', to life in heaven (1 Pe 3:18). Moreover he was raised to a higher form of life..."

NB: In the WTS, it depends on the class of people you belong to.

I'm sorry, what part of that said he didn't have a body?

"it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body there is also a spiritual one...The first man is out of the earth and made of dust, the second one is out of heaven."- Apostle Paul

Angels are spirits, they have spiritual bodies too.

NonTrinitarian

February 8th 2006, 07:03 PM

Hi NonTrinitarian,

Now if we were discussing Deut 7:6 and the meaning of what occured as a retrospect (cp: Deut 6:20-25) you'd be correct.

However, Exodus 4:22-23 is YHWH's message to Pharoah "this is my firstborn" , those dedicated to me, release them or I'll slay your "firstborn" those dedicated to Amon-Ra.. YHWH was not talking about the nation of Egypt, as Moses well attests - it was the human firstborn sons of Egypt that died! As the WTS publication noted, it was a contest between YHWH and the false god's of Pharoah.
Jah wasn't comparing JUST the firstborn sons of Israel to the firstborn sons of Israel. He was comparing his people, all of the Israelites, to the Egyptians. If the Israelites had not put the blood on their door, their firstborn would have been killed too. Nothing you said disputes the fact Jehovah was raising the NATION of Israel of the NATION of Egypt.

You attribute "firstborn" to a class. Which I don't dispute. However, the class is not "nation". As even the WTS would emphasise to you.
I haven't seen any WT dispute what I have said.

Which goes to show, you don't know what firstborn means as regard to the Israelites. They were not chosen over, made head etc - they have no authority over the other nations. (contrast Col 1:15-19). However, as Deut 7 :6 says "YHWH has chosen you to be a special people unto himself"

They were chosen over the other nations. I could quote NUMEROUS scriptures where God specifically says he CHOSE them over all others. Zheesh!

apostoli

February 8th 2006, 07:25 PM

Hi NonTrinitarian,

Jah wasn't comparing JUST the firstborn sons of Israel to the firstborn sons of Israel. He was comparing his people, all of the Israelites, to the Egyptians. If the Israelites had not put the blood on their door, their firstborn would have been killed too. Nothing you said disputes the fact Jehovah was raising the NATION of Israel of the NATION of Egypt.

I haven't seen any WT dispute what I have said.Have a read of the WTS publication Insight on the Scriptures, Firstborn, Firstling, Page 835, paras 3 & 4 (Its too long to type out) . Of interest is Ex 13:2 where "every male firstborn that opens each womb among the sons of Israel, among men and beasts" be sanctified to Jehovah.

THE Insight on the Scriptures , para 5 notes "Later Jehovah took the male Levites...in place of the firstborn sons of Israel...

They were chosen over the other nations. I could quote NUMEROUS scriptures where God specifically says he CHOSE them over all others. Zheesh!We are getting into word semantics. I'll concede "chosen over" where the meaning is "chosen to be a special people unto [Jehovah] himself" (Deut 7:6).

However, Israel was not setup as "head of household" over the other nations, which is an attribute of being firstborn. Israel has no authority over the other nations, nor any responsibility for the other nations - authority & responsibility are other attributes of being made firstborn. Contrast Israel as firstborn with Jesus at Col 1:15-19 - Jesus has power, headship and pre-eminence in all things.

Zheesh!

alam

February 8th 2006, 08:22 PM

Greetings Pythagoras,

Greetings alam, and peace,

Thanks for another educational post.

I don't disagree.

Yes,I read the Shema as saying God is an absolute one God, and not a compound unity. It is speaking to His being.

Alam, is it not the same to say that "there is one God", as to say "God is one"? Isn't this the gist of our argument regarding echad. I don't understand what you're implying here? Maybe I'm missing the point of your argument.

There is a trivial sense in which we can speak of "one god". The sense in which Zeus is one god, Apollo is one god, and together they make two gods.

When scripture teaches that YHWH is one God, surely something beyond this is meant. As you said, it is a statement about His nature. Of the two expressions "one God" and "God is one", the latter describes the nature of God, where the former does not necessarily do so unless used with this monotheistic consciousness. Sometimes the homousians seem to revert to the former sense, saying that they too have one God who just happens to have three forms. This was all I had in mind.

God bless,

alam

February 8th 2006, 08:24 PM

ALAM: Shalom. Naiem meod!!
An interesting post. Todah rabba!!!

Thanks, Oldmonk. Kol tuv!

alam

February 8th 2006, 09:08 PM

Hi Apostoli,

Through this post I'm going to harp on Deut 4:35-39 (sorry) and propose on the basis of these texts echad at Deut 6:4 cannot be understood in any way other than "there is no other".

If Moses had wanted to say the same thing in Deut. 6:4 as he did in Deut. 4:35,39, he have just repeated "besides Him there is no other".

I agree with you that Deut. 4:35-39 should have a bearing on how we interpret Echad in Deut. 6:4, but to say that Echad in Deut. 6:4 can be understood only as shorthand for 'ein `odh mill'vaddo' (besides Him there is no other) seems to overstate the matter, if that is indeed what you are suggesting. Although this meaning would agree in a general way with the sense of Echad as 'alone' or 'unique'

To my weird mind: scripture trumps academia when it is emphatic and undeniable.

Not weird at all. Hope I have not seemed to be of a different mind.

I don't dispute that elsewhere in scripture, echad might be viewed as a composite but even in the familiar cites there is debate. For instance: Gen 2:24 is interpreted by some as - man and women are one flesh in regards to their children, which are a composite of both father and mother. Given Gen 2:18, I tend for the interpretation that they are one in purpose and will.

Yes they should be one in purpose and will, but verse 24 says they should also be "one flesh." Is that a likely metaphor for "purpose and will"?

"man and women are one flesh in regards to their children, which are a composite of both father and mother."

That is a way of looking at it, but I do not see the need to be so literal. Gesenius' third definition of 'basar' (flesh) is one of familial relation or brotherhood. His examples: Gen. 29:14; 37:27; Judges 9:2; 2 Sam. 5:1; 19:13,14; Isa. 58:7. Paul made use of this idiom in Romans 11:14. Gesenius suggests a comparison to Genesis 2:23:

And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Non-trinitarianism does not leave one with the absolute divine simplicity concept of God by default.
I'm not sure if I understand you. Would you explain.

You can be non-trinitarian and believe that God exists in a complex unity. There is the example of orthodox Islam which is non-trinitarian and yet (afaik) admits a plurality as far as divine attributes are concerned. You could look at Averroes' Incoherence of the Incoherence (http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ir/tt/default.htm) to see some issues that went around.

A little later you say "Echad does not grammatically or semantically bring any plurality, even an inclusive plurality of attributes, into the nouns it modifies."

This is not a comment on whose theology is true but about the function of 'Echad'. You could agree and still believe God is a complex unity; you just would not try to derive support for this belief from the word Echad.

That is interesting. As I recall correctly, there is a Jewish tradition of several things being co-eternal with God - one of which being the Torah.

I cannot vouch for a Jewish belief in things co-eternal with God. There is a teaching that some things pre-existed the world. Pythagoras has the list I believe; it includes the Messiah, and Gan Eden.

According to what I have read, in Kabbalah the Sefirot are carefully distinguished from Ein Sof or the Infinite Godhead. They are considered to be created, or the equivalent...

God belongs to a totally different category than the Sefirot, and is not to be counted among them. As a result, we cannot even describe Him by such purely abstract qualities as will, wisdom, love or strength. When the Bible makes use of any of these qualities in relation to God, it is speaking of the Sefirot created by God, and not of the Creator Himself.

Of course. Echad does not rule out a compound unity when it happens to modify a collective singular noun.

Acknowledged. However, I trust you'll agree, the construction and subject of Deut 6:4 doesn't fit into this category. Especially given the prequel at Deut 4:35 & 39

Yes.

As an illiterate, peasant, agrarian people, I'm inclined to believe they do and did. There is anthropological (cargo cults) and biblical evidence to suggest such (cp: Ex 32:1-6). In modern times: Don't the Mormons believe such in a physical sense?

Mormons believe that. But it is not always easy to guess which groups will be more susceptible to religious anthropomorphism. During the Second Temple, the upper crust Sadducees tended toward anthropomorphism, whereas the Pharisees, a more popular movement, tended to oppose it.

In the case of a human being called 'adonim' or 'masters,' the ancients knew it was a figure of speech.
Though, you have studied Hebrew, I'd suggest you might be understanding this in a modern western sense. When I went walk about (alone) through the provincial areas of Turkey and Greece, I rarely found anyone that spoke english and occasionally came across some interesting broken "english" eg: Yous want? (plural you applied specifically to me). I think much is lost between the idioms of various languages. Even in English, the "royal we" of the British monarchy refers to the Queen talking in the context of the will of the nation and the commonwealth, not her own (though sometimes we wonder), an idea that might be lost in the USA.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I understand what you are saying, but by "figure of speech" only meant that the normal sense of the plural ending would not apply. Hebrew words like 'adonim' (master) or 'panim' are not actually plural. The plural ending in these instances fulfils a function that is qualitatively different. In the latter, it has become an inseparable part of the word, like the plural ending of English 'news.'

In regard to Deut 6:4 the perspective is in Deut 6:20-25.

Yes, at least in part.

A quick word on composite unity: Have a look at Ex 32:4 where we have a perspective of "this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the Land of Egypt". True he did, and the tribes were also lead through the desert by the Shekinah, even Aaron had a part. All these working with a single purpose and aim. But via Deut 6:21 this has to be understood as all working by the will and power of "there is no other" = YHWH. (cp. Deut 33-39)

Agreed. But this does not mean that Moses and Aaron were part of the Echad which is YHWH. They were only His human agents, and of themselves could do nothing of His works.

To my mind Deut 4:35 & 4:39 "there is no other" (NEB) defines how we are to understand echad at 6:4. However, we also need to take 6:5 into account. After all 6:4+5 are the message of one idea (see below).

Agreed again.

As noted above: I suggest Deut 4:35 & 4:39 provide sufficient context to how echad is to be understood at 6:4. And sufficient to prove it is not used as a compound plurality.

Probably so.

I might suggest: that though you are correct in what you say regarding what the Rabbi implies, you may have missed what he said. I understand him in the context of Deut 6:20. The justification for Deut 6:5 (Deut 7:6-13)

I think we agree.

Also, as per Gesenius, Echad can also mean "one only of a kind" or unique.
We don't need a grammar to prove the point

Grammars and lexicons have their place. There is no need to show that a word in context could not have had a given meaning when the word does not have that meaning in its semantic range at all. When an argument purporting to be based on Hebrew fails to actually be based on Hebrew, it's a non-starter.

Hmmm. We'd certainly have to redefine God, as Deut 4 would have the "only son" being "the only God". Modalists might like it. Hmmm...

:hehe: So they might.

All I could find on the net was Strong's, have you a direct link to Gesenius?

This site (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1139446745-7928.html) seems to have it scanned, under the heading "Hebrew Lexicon"

Presume you mean: "one only of a kind" or unique.

I'm happy to take Deut 4 literally "There is no other", I'm not keen on the other English renditions. ie: Deut 6:4 is not about genus but status (cp: Deut 6:14-15; 1 Cor 8:5-6).

However, the focus of "one only of a kind" is not necessarily genus. In the sense of "unique" it could be a statement of status.

As both you and Pythagoras have noted "Yachid has negative connotations", so I think sharp contrast is justified.

But not a contrast between 'Yachid' meaning "single" as opposed to 'Echad' supposedly being more collective. Echad also can mean single, and this is the overlap between Yachid and Echad. Echad is just free of Yachid's negative implications.

In post #94 Pythagoras, notes "[Yachid] is found a grand total of about 12 times in the entire bible -- desolate, lonely, isolated etc" so even on the basis of usage their is a sharp contrast.

Basically, I know only what I read. As previously discussed yachid seems to have changed meaning and no longer reflects the biblical meaning. As the Bishop said to the Rabbi ? and the Rabbi replied !

The context of my understanding: God is not Yachid (lonely). He doesn't need us! We need him! And he wants us, to add him, to ourselves (see below).

No disagreement with the thought.

In biblical usage they have seem to have overlapped some
Would you expand on this.

Echad too can mean single; this is the overlap between Yachid and Echad.

However, the word "echad" is one of inclusion

It is one thing to say that the purpose of Echad in Deut. 6:4, in context, is to show God's activity as the binding force of creation, the One-for-many. To some extent I would agree with you on this. But it is another thing to present this as a lexical fact about the word 'echad'.

and I might suggest is better understood in the context of Deut 4:35-39; 6:20; 7:6-13 (ie: chapters 4 through 7). Aka: though God cannot be added to, we can add him to us - be as one with him. If he was "yachid" this would not be possible.yachid had connotations that would not have been suitable for God.Possibly, I am overly influenced by the Jewish perspective of echad when used at Deut 6:4, though I suggest with some justification.

In the KJV rendering of Deut 6 (and other renderings) there is verses 4 and 5, but look closely at the punctuation, they are one sentence. The NEB renders "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, one Lord, and you must love the Lord with all your heart and soul and strength."

My understanding of love is that it is a binding force and I suggest this is what Deut 6:5 is talking about. That which we love isn't just an attachment to us, isn't external to us, but becomes a part of us.

Essentially I think we agree. The agape love is disinterested in that it "seeketh not its own..." (1 Cor. 13:5). No thing "about" God inclined Him to create a universe, let alone save sinful inhabitants while they were yet sinners; God is truly unconditioned and free. He is so because He is Echad; one and only, unique, inconparable.

God's singular uniqueness: how He is apart from creation, is the foundation for what He is in the creation. Because He is unconditioned, God can love unconditionally, and save His people unconditionally, unilaterally, even apart from merit and works. And being loved unconditionally by God, they become free, insofar as they have faith, to respond with a similar love toward God, and to others (1 John 4:19; 2 Cor. 1:3-4; Romans 8:35-39). As a hint at the Being of God, 'Echad' may be seen to show the basis for agape love.

In Deuteronomy:

The LORD did not set his love upon you, or choose you, because you were more in number than any people; for you were the fewest of all peoples: but because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn to your fathers, has the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen....

Again,

And because he loved thy fathers, therefore, he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out, he himself being present, with his mighty power out of Mizrayim.

To an extent, I see the message of Deut 6:2-6, as reflected in 1 Thess 5:23 (though we obey not the letter but the spirit of the law).

That is an interesting connection.

Jn 10:30-31 made me pause to think on whether Chassidic thinking (see previous post), has been influenced by Christian thinking? I think not. I'd suggest Gamaliel and the like may have had a Chassidic understanding (cp: Acts 5:39) but the others were more influenced by their combat/absorption of hellenistic and secular ideas (cp: Matt 23:13-37).

Given Jn 10:31, I would suggest, A.John used eis in a very strong manner.

He did not use heis v. 30, but hen. There seems to have been a real difference. One was definitely perceived in the equivalent Latin unus vs. unum: Tertullian, Against Praxeas 22 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm); Augustine, Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, 7 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm); Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit ii. 18 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34022.htm);

After all, the Aramaic words that Jesus used (which A.John renders in the Greek) were enough to provoke the Jews to want to stone him.

The confrontation took place against the backdrop of a previous history (eg., John 9:3ff.). Even an ambiguous statement from Jesus, or one with a double meaning, as he made on some occasions (John 2:19; 6:53; Matthew 13:13), might have been enough. We should approach Jesus' difficult teachings from the perspective of his plain teachings (John 16:29), rather than follow the unbelieving Jewish reactions, imo.

Have a look at Jesus explanation at vs38 "though you believe me not, believe the works, that you may know, and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him." And in their lack of understanding the Jews still wanted to stone him!

Agreed.

As a digression: I do not understand Jn 10:25-39, in the same way as the evangelicals and catechists. Particularly, as we are talking about Jesus' humanity and pointedly because of Jn 13:16 & Phil 2:7-8. When Jesus says the Father is in him, I see it in a similar sense as Deut 6:6 and when Jesus says he is in the Father, I see it in a similar sense to Deut 6:5. The two conditions Jesus regularly points out are absent in most of the Jews (cp: John 8:29-47). You might disagree but consider Jesus declared his "works" to be his witness - "though you believe not me, believe the works". In times past Elisha and the other prophets did similar works and they too were detested.

True.

To put this stoning thing in perspective: in modern Jerusalem, there are Jews who stone cars on the Shabbat, as they see those driving as defiling the law.
To this day, there is a lot of hypocrisy amongst religious Jews, who obey the letter but not the spirit.

Trying to practice the Torah rigorously on an individual basis does not work well. It is designed to be the rule of a society. Cars going around on the Sabbath require gas stations, which have to have people running them. When some are working, others start working to stay competitive, and the thing compounds...

Regarding John 17: Here too I believe the words are used with force. Particularly as I reflect on A.Paul's words regarding many members but one body. But then again I put a particular emphasis on Jn 17:23 (cp: Rom 8:9-11), that you may not share.

Yes, they are used with force, but not the kind of force of Echad has in the Shema, which is translated by Heis in the Greek.

Especially, judeo-christianity. Well! In human nature there is a tendency to copy one's elder brothers :-}

Shalom...

Very true.

All the best,

apostoli

February 9th 2006, 02:10 AM

HI NonTrinitarian,
I'm sorry, what part of that said he didn't have a body?

"it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body there is also a spiritual one...The first man is out of the earth and made of dust, the second one is out of heaven."- Apostle Paul

Angels are spirits, they have spiritual bodies too.I'll pay that one. Though the intro of "Insights in the Scriptures" for resurrection does suggests there is no body, later on we have the concept of a spiritual body. It is a bit vague, but I'll concede the spiritual body.

The difficulty for me is limiting it to 144,000.

apostoli

February 9th 2006, 02:45 AM

Hi Alam,

Your post #180, I very much appreciated. You balance me. And I thank you for that. There are those here that may not understand, but I trust you do, when I say, I feel in the company of the Gregories, and when I wish you all the fullness of Christ in your life.

You are a blessing to me...

Pythagoras

February 9th 2006, 06:31 AM

Hi Billy the Cat,

:hrm: I thought Non-Trin said that firstborn was always a part of the whole, so Jesus is every creature?

Phantaz did a nice job critiquing Holt, who he considers a good friend, including the "firstborn"
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/holtb01.html

Since when does part of the whole equals the whole? Jesus as first born of all creatures means he is to be located within the set of things created.

On a side note, I found Phantaz's book review to be quite entertaining. His writing style is reminiscent of that of the highly excitable trinitarian apologist, Jp Holding. Both also have a tendency to write laborious, babbling posts.

best wishes nonetheless,

Pythagoras

February 9th 2006, 06:57 AM

Greetings apostoli, blessings in Christ,

To some extent, I may have misrepresented Augustine - he does indeed acknowledge the Holy Spirit as a person.

And this admission brings us back full circle to my original point.

Perfect love in the bible is not a relationship involving a "three-ness" but a "two-ness", otherwise we would have to conclude God formed an imperfect love in His union of Adam and Eve , and Jesus was refering to an imperfect love when he said the man shall leave his father and mother to be united with his wife , the two becoming one flesh.

You have to read Augustine to understand him. His premise is "God is love", and to my mind, to him, the Holy Spirit is the manifestation of that love, just as Jesus is the manifestation of the "power and wisdom" of God.

Would you say the person of the holy spirit is relationally involved in the love which the father and the son both share? If yes, you have the problem highlighted above . If no, the person of the holy spirit serves only to eternally "manifest" (i.e. witness, or peep) the love which the father and the son share.

Peace in Christ,

Pythagoras

February 9th 2006, 07:38 AM

Greetings Alam, and blessings in Christ.

Greetings Pythagoras,

There is a trivial sense in which we can speak of "one god". The sense in which Zeus is one god, Apollo is one god, and together they make two gods.

When scripture teaches that YHWH is one God, surely something beyond this is meant. As you said, it is a statement about His nature. Of the two expressions "one God" and "God is one", the latter describes the nature of God, where the former does not necessarily do so unless used with this monotheistic consciousness. Sometimes the homousians seem to revert to the former sense, saying that they too have one God who just happens to have three forms. This was all I had in mind.

God bless,

Understood!

I guess I wolud like you to confirm once more , that the use of echad in the Shema demands God is "one"(absolute 1) , and that the "trivial" read(i.e. "one God" like Apollo, Zeus or the trinitarian deity) is rendered impossible because of the word echad and the structure of the Shema?

Agree or disagree?

Pythagoras

February 9th 2006, 08:11 AM

Hi Apostoli and Alam,

Greetings in the name of Christ our Messiah..

I cannot vouch for a Jewish belief in things co-eternal with God. There is a teaching that some things pre-existed the world. Pythagoras has the list I believe; it includes the Messiah, and Gan Eden.

According to the Jews seven things, including Messiah pre-existed the creation of the world. There is absolutely no literal pre-existence or implication of co-eternality with God . Infact the Jews believed that Messiah was born(created) and he pre-existed in the mind of God . I think Unitarians are comfortable with this . That is why Jesus could say "before Abraham was I am".

"Seven things were created before the world was created: Torah, repentance, the Garden of Eden (i.e.Paradise), Gehinnom, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah" (Pes. 54a).

"From the beginning of the creation of the world king Messiah was born, for he enteredthe mind (of God) before even the world was created" (Pesikta Rab. 152b)

God bless,

apostoli

February 9th 2006, 09:05 AM

Hi Pythagoras,

And this admission brings us back full circle to my original point.

Perfect love in the bible is not a relationship involving a "three-ness" but a "two-ness", otherwise we would have to conclude God formed an imperfect love in His union of Adam and Eve , and Jesus was refering to an imperfect love when he said the man shall leave his father and mother to be united with his wife , the two becoming one flesh.

Would you say the person of the holy spirit is relationally involved in the love which the father and the son both share? If yes, you have the problem highlighted above . If no, the person of the holy spirit serves only to eternally "manifest" (i.e. witness, or peep) the love which the father and the son share.In the Greek, there are four complex words which in English are simply translated as love. I think you are focusing your thoughts on eros (erotica), whereas Augustine was describing agape. I'm sure Alam can explain the subtleties better than I...

"Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and everyone that loves is born of God and knows God." (1 Jn 4:7) As you can see, love is not limited to two. Then we also have the witness of Jesus of the primary commandment, which I know you are well familair...

Pythagoras

February 9th 2006, 02:37 PM

Greetings apostoli, and peace:
Hi Pythagoras,

In the Greek, there are four complex words which in English are simply translated as love. I think you are focusing your thoughts on eros (erotica), whereas Augustine was describing agape. I'm sure Alam can explain the subtleties better than I...

...

I understand that, the two most familiar Greek words(out of the four) describing relational love are eros and agape. However contrary to what you say, I'm not focusing my thoughts on eros with refrence to the persons of the holy trinity, obviously, because the three persons (or at least two out of the three are not flesh) so eros is impossible. Furthermore, even from the human perspective I don't think the OT, and Jesus in particular was focusing primarily on eros when he said the man shall leave father and mother and be united to his wife and the two become one flesh, otherwise we would have to conclude Paul was comparing Christ's relationship with his church in terms erotic when he called the Church the bride of Christ. No, no! . -- check also the relationship that exists between God and Israel, between Abraham and Sarah, between Adam and Eve, etc.

Biblical love is invariably signified/defined by a "two-ness" and not a "three-ness". This poses a serious problem to the Augustinian conception of trinitarian love, and he is at a complete lost on what to do with the third person in his trinitarian relationship! I define it in erotic terms as an orgy of love, but I think you get the metaphorical sense.

apostoli

February 9th 2006, 10:55 PM

Hi Pythagoras,

I understand that, the two most familiar Greek words(out of the four) describing relational love are eros and agape. However contrary to what you say, I'm not focusing my thoughts on eros with refrence to the persons of the holy trinity, obviously, because the three persons (or at least two out of the three are not flesh) so eros is impossible. Furthermore, even from the human perspective I don't think the OT, and Jesus in particular was focusing primarily on eros when he said the man shall leave father and mother and be united to his wife and the two become one flesh, otherwise we would have to conclude Paul was comparing Christ's relationship with his church in terms erotic when he called the Church the bride of Christ. No, no! . -- check also the relationship that exists between God and Israel, between Abraham and Sarah, between Adam and Eve, etc.

Biblical love is invariably signified/defined by a "two-ness" and not a "three-ness". This poses a serious problem to the Augustinian conception of trinitarian love, and he is at a complete lost on what to do with the third person in his trinitarian relationship! I define it in erotic terms as an orgy of love, but I think you get the metaphorical sense.I'm a bit lost regarding what we are actually arguing about. I'm not a big fan of Augustine either!

I guess it is the perception of "what is love?" I see love as very inclusive and not limited to two. Even with man and woman, though they love each to the other, there is also a unified love towards their children. Please understand, I am not appealing to this aspect of love as a defense of the Trinity, I present it merely to illustrate that true, unselfish love goes beyond the introspection of any two people.

It is said that in the east, theology developed starting from the premise of one and explaining how they are three, whereas in the west, theology started
from the premise of three and explaining how they are one. I appreciate you reject the conclusions of the Greeks and the starting point of the Latins, but I suggest an understanding of the development of the theologies is educational in respect of the Latin versus the Greek mind.

It seems to me that Augustine locked his thoughts onto the aspect of "God is love" (maybe he had a neglected childhood (?)) and came up with what I perceive as a very inadequate scenario the Father=the lover, the Son=the one loved and who reciprocates love and the Spirit=the love itself. As you pointed out, and I must agree, this analogy seems to put the Spirit outside of the Father/Son relationship - bit of a loose end I guess - and you could conceive it as he was unloved. However, I'd suggest that in Augustines mind the greatest expression of love is the begettal of children, as the lovers' love is no longer introspective. Augustine seems to equate the Spirit with the church (children born of God) and so we find the Spirit mutually loved by both Father and Son. The analogy has its problems, firstly as objectors will reinterpret this in humanist terms.

Augustine in his analogy wasn't trying to prove the Trinity, to him that was an established fact. He tried to explain the relationship of the three. I don't find his explanation adequate but I try to comprehend the poetry of the ideas he reads into scripture.

Doesn't mean I agree with him theologically. One of the problems that confronted him, was to explain how the Spirit is not another Son of God and how it is that he proceeds principally from the Father but also from the Son. I don't accept the filioque but I have an appreciation of why Augustine came to the conclusion he did. I find philosophers can convince themselves, and their followers, about whatever takes their fancy, and I think this is true of Augustine. He starts from a premise "God is love" that no one would disagree with, and ends with God loves us, again something we want to hear. The tricky bits are in the middle ;-)

Peace.

NB: My definitions of Eros & Agape

Eros:
I hunger for you each waking moment.

Agape:
I give to you, myself.

alam

February 10th 2006, 12:00 AM

Greetings Alam, and blessings in Christ.

Understood!

I guess I wolud like you to confirm once more , that the use of echad in the Shema demands God is "one"(absolute 1) ,

Hello Pythagoras:

Agreed, in the sense that we are not entitled to assert distinctions in His immanent being. The ultimate by definition is the limit of inquiry, impenetrable to the intellect and imagination. Hence it presents itself to us under a unitary concept, unsusceptible to further question and analysis. So I understand the assertion of absolute divine unity in apophatic rather than cataphatic terms.

and that the "trivial" read(i.e. "one God" like Apollo, Zeus or the trinitarian deity) is rendered impossible because of the word echad and the structure of the Shema?

Basically, the trivial read is wrong because it is trivial: it makes the Shema into a tautology.

According to the Jews seven things, including Messiah pre-existed the creation of the world. There is absolutely no literal pre-existence or implication of co-eternality with God . Infact the Jews believed that Messiah was born(created) and he pre-existed in the mind of God . I think Unitarians are comfortable with this . That is why Jesus could say "before Abraham was I am".

"Seven things were created before the world was created: Torah, repentance, the Garden of Eden (i.e.Paradise), Gehinnom, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah" (Pes. 54a).

"From the beginning of the creation of the world king Messiah was born, for he enteredthe mind (of God) before even the world was created" (Pesikta Rab. 152b)

God bless,

Thanks, Pythagoras!

Yours in Christ,

alam

February 10th 2006, 12:20 AM

apostoli

February 10th 2006, 06:01 AM

Hi Oldmonk,

I was reading through the thread and realised I never replied to your post #72 from a week ago. My apologies.

You said "I have studied hard and searched the Jewish literature to more fully understand the Old testament texts." and I compliment you on that effort, and have tried to reply within that context. Undoubtedly, we have a close but different view on some things. I'll just try to explain how I see things...

I thank you for your thoughts. I however do not see things quite that way. Let me explain my view a little clearer to you...
Concerning the sacrifice of Jesus. The priests were consecrated to God and were considered to be God's thus Holy. Even with that consecration ie. God given Holiness they had to sacrifice for themselves before sacrificing for the people. They then each year had to repeat the same thing year after year.Have a think on that.

Seems the atonement sacrifices themselves were offered imperfectly. Which would imply that the sacrifices were not totally acceptable to God. From Nehemiah we get the impression that the priesthood itself became corrupted (Neh 13:29). Also see Malachi 2:1-9. "O you priests...I also made you contemptible and base before all the people...as you have not kept my ways..."

Consider 1 Sam 15:22 "Hath the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat rams...because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you..." Though, this text is referring to Saul, it does give a view of Jehovah's attitude towards the sacrifices. That is: the sacrifices themselves are unimportant, it is the motivation that goes with them that has significance.

Ps 40:6-8 seems to suggest this more clearly: "If thou hadst desired sacrifice and offering thou would have given me ears to hear. If thou hadst asked for whole-offering and sin-offering I would have said 'Here I am'. My desire is to do thy will, O God and thy law is in my heart." (NEB)

A.Paul tells us that Jesus' sacrifice was perfectly offered and fully accepted by God, because he was faithful and obedient even unto death.

Now the Bible talks of sin even in the womb!!I presume you are referring to Isaiah 48:8. Have a read of this text, it doesn't say we are intrinsically sinful, but our inclination is not to listen to the Lord (cp: Deut 48:8). Compare what God reveals at Ezekiel 18:19-23 "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father...if [he] keeps all my statutes and do which is lawful and right"

Compare Proverbs 21:3 "Do what is right and just; that is more pleasing to the Lord than sacrifice (NEB)

Again we have a contrast with Jesus who even in the womb (cp: Luke 1:31-32) was dedicated unto his Father, and thoughout his life, even upto death he did the will of his Father. No wonder his sacrifice was the only one offered that pleased his Father!

That means that we are born into sin...Gal 3:22 says we are "all under sin" but not intrinsically sinful and so the law was given to be our schoolmaster. That is keep us from sinning. It is upto us whether we obey or not.

Scriptures such as Isa 44:24; 49:5 make it obvious it is not in our biology or chemistry to be sinful as God forms us from the womb. So taking Isa 48:8 as an indicator it seems that the sin is a tendency not to obey God. Something, we can't say of Jesus - he was always obedient to the will of his Father.

so if Jesus is JUST a man then he has a sin debt by nature.Not true. Consider Ezekiel 18:19-23. Also consider, if man is by nature intrinsically sinful then there is no chance of us being born of God. Consider what A.John says "We know that whosoever is born of God sins not...and we know that we are of God" (1 Jn 5:18-19). The scriptures say we have a choice to follow the flesh (self will) or of being born to God (obey God's will). Jesus was born unto God in an incomparable way to all other men.

My point is that HIS blood stands for ALL TIME to be the remedy for sin. That is sins past present and those that are yet to be committed. My question is how is it that an ORDINARY mans blood could cover ALL sin past, present, and future, when the blood of the sacrifices could not do it for even a year... there were many sacrifices between days of atonement.As God didn't accept these sacrifices, we might view them as rituals instigated to teach and because the Israelites generally had a bad attitude, they were imperfect. Something that had to be done, rather than something freely done. Compare the OT with the Gospel accounts of the temple service, read the prophets. The sacrifices of the Jews were not always offered with the right heart. And they were introspective, and selfish, either as a sin offering for the individual or for the nation. Contrast these sacrifices with Jesus - who died for the whole world.

It seems to me that the nature of his blood was different...ie lasts forever before God...ie ETERNAL. Now if Jesus has ETERNAL BLOOD then what does that say of His NATURE???Jesus was fully man, his blood wasn't any different to any other man. Consider Phil 2:7-8. The majority understanding is that neither of his natures are confounded nor confused.

Tradition has it that those in heaven are spirit, made of the incorruptible - ie: not flesh and blood. (though if you are a Mormon you might see things differently).

A final thought: The significance of blood in the sacrificial system/s was that it was seen as the "life force" of an individual (animal or human) and therefore the sign that the life had been forfeited. Jesus' blood cannot be eternal as he laid down his life for us - the life is in the blood (Lev 17:11). Did Jesus give up his life for us? Did God accept the sacrifice, to be a propitiation for sin, once and for all time? I trust you answer yes to both questions.

I have studied hard and searched the Jewish literature to more fully understand the Old testament texts. I think to divorce the christian faith from its OT ties is dangerous and leads to error.I agree. I'd suggest it is impossible to understand the NT, especially the redemption message, without the context of the OT.

All the best.

ps:

You might get some amusement from John Calvin's, satire, An Inventory of Relics,
particularly the part on all the "Jesus' blood" that was around in his time.
http://www.societaschristiana.com/History/Reformation/InventoryOfRelics.html

I present this, just to illustrate the errors people have fallen into regarding the things of Christ. Forgiveness of sin is through the blood. However, I suggest that the acceptence of the sacrifice is more important. Let this mind be in you... (Ph 2:6-11)

Pythagoras

February 10th 2006, 07:22 AM

Greetings alam, and peace,

Agreed, in the sense that we are not entitled to assert distinctions in His immanent being. The ultimate by definition is the limit of inquiry, impenetrable to the intellect and imagination. Hence it presents itself to us under a unitary concept, unsusceptible to further question and analysis. So I understand the assertion of absolute divine unity in apophatic rather than cataphatic terms.

Basically, the trivial read is wrong because it is trivial: it makes the Shema into a tautology.

Indeed. It's worth reiterating that Deut. 17:6 defines 1 absolute person as echad, and not "three persons in 1 being" as echad.

"On the testimony of two or three witnesses witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of of only one(echad) witness."

Furthermore, as you also noticed, if John 18:3 is viewed from the trinitarian lense, it would mean that "each individual human could count as multiple witnesses!"

John 8:16:

"In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is vald. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the father, who sent me."

Pythagoras

February 10th 2006, 08:31 AM

Greetings apostoli, and peace,

I'm a bit lost regarding what we are actually arguing about. I'm not a big fan of Augustine either!

Here's my argument:

If God(the father) needed someone to love him from eternity to satisfy the conditions for love, it seems to me one other person apart from himself would have sufficed . What need for a third? Augustine has a hard time with precisely this, and he could not adequately explain the (a) function, (b) need, and (c) purpose of the holy spirit in the trinitarian "dance of love" . Now, the Hindu perichoresis(which has not love for it's primary motive ) acounts for the third by ascribing to each respectively functions of creation(Brahma), preservation(Vishnu) and destruction/ rejuvenation(Shiva).

Since the trinitarian perichoresis is based primarily upon the love theme relationship (unlike it's Hindu counterpart), what is the rational for including a third person in this tango of love , if all the requirements of love could have been satisfied by only two persons?

That's your problem, in a nutshell.

Everywhere we turn in scripture, we see idealized love expressed in the form of a "two-ness", not a "three-ness". -- Adam and Eve, Christ and his Church, Israel and the Father, Abraham and Sarah, etc. Rember also that Jesus condemned polygamy and told the Israelites the idealized state to be one man one wife, and not one man two wives, etc.etc.

I guess it is the perception of "what is love?" I see love as very inclusive and not limited to two.

Yes ofcourse I agree, love is inclusive, but love perfected is always engendered as a "two-ness" in the bible so that the Saints (though they number in the millions) are yet one body ( one bride,"compound unity"!) married to Christ, so that Israel though it number in the many, is yet one wife of God, and so forth. Negative connotations , imperfections invariably come to the fore when "two-ness" is exceeded , so that we get notions of polygamy, orgy, adultry, etc..

If the trinity doctrine is true, it would mean relational love is perfected within a "three-ness" framework, and not with two persons, for the Godhead's love(3 persons instead of 2 persons) is naturally to be considered ideal. It would mean Adam and Eve lacked a third person in their relationship to perfect their love.

God bless,

JAY-PC

February 10th 2006, 11:06 AM

If the trinity doctrine is true, it would mean relational love is perfected within a "three-ness" framework, and not with two persons, for the Godhead's love(3 persons instead of 2 persons) is naturally to be considered ideal. It would mean Adam and Eve lacked a third person in their relationship to perfect their love.

God bless,

Could not the One God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) be the 3rd in this relationship of love? We are to Love God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. If in my relationship with my wife I do not have love for God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is that a complete love?

Just thinking off the top of my head so any criticism is welcome.

God bless
Jay-Pc

Pythagoras

February 10th 2006, 03:36 PM

Hi JAY-PC,

Could not the One God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) be the 3rd in this relationship of love? We are to Love God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength.
Just thinking off the top of my head so any criticism is welcome.

God bless
Jay-Pc

First of all trinitairans would take issue with your characterization of the "Godhead" or "(Father, Son, and holy Spirit)" as the "One God". They would say each of the three persons is the "One God", yet God is still One God.

In anycase, the "Godhead"(or father, son, holy spirit) becomes the 4th, not 3rd, element in this relationship if we adopt your point of view . count -- father, son, holy spirit, Godhead.

If in my relationship with my wife I do not have love for God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is that a complete love?

You're missing the point of the argument. The love which was in Adam and Eve is typic of the love which Christ has for his church, and incorporates an inherent category of two and not of three.

best wishes,

JAY-PC

February 10th 2006, 05:14 PM

First of all trinitairans would take issue with your characterization of the "Godhead" or "(Father, Son, and holy Spirit)" as the "One God". They would say each of the three persons is the "One God", yet God is still One God.

I don't see the issue.
There is only one God. The Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is the one God. Yes, all three are God by nature yet there is only one God. But that was not my point. One God and Adam and Eve make three. Their love would not be complete apart from God.

Christ and the Church, well, the Church is made up of many people yet they are one body.

Thanks for your thoughts

God bless
Jay-Pc

Pythagoras

February 10th 2006, 06:06 PM

Hi Jay-PC,

I don't see the issue.
One God and Adam and Eve make three. Their love would not be complete apart from God.

Christ and the Church, well, the Church is made up of many people yet they are one body.

Thanks for your thoughts

God bless
Jay-Pc

If there are three lovers in the Godhead, and if you add the love of two others, Adam and Eve (whatever you want to call them, persons/beings/entities what not) into the love relationship of these three lovers, you end up with five lovers in all ,and not three. You see, even equivocating 3 and 1 doesn't get you off the hook arguing as you're arguing. Only way out for you is to claim there are not three lovers in the trinity .

Do you get it ?.. If no, take some more time to think over what I've written.

best wishes,

apostoli

February 10th 2006, 09:46 PM

Hi Pythagoras,

Here's my argument:

If God(the father) needed someone to love him from eternity to satisfy the conditions for love,I think you will agree that God, the Father, is perfect alone. And in judeo-christianity that is our starting point.

The way I see it: the whole scriptural message is about God's interaction with man, initially his chosen people and finally the people who choose God. Apart from this interaction, the scriptures speak about our perception of God. As an example: In my post to Oldmonk regarding the sacrifices, I attempt to highlight that though YHWH instigated the sacrifices, they were according to A.Paul as a schoolmaster. I quoted Nehemiah, Psalms, Ezekiel and Malachi to show that YHWH wasn't interested in the sacrifices themselves but the heart condition, motivation that was behind them. And this is another consideration of judeo-christianity. Why does God care about us? A.John in his first epistle sums it up because "God is love!"

A couple of questions to ponder: Why is not God perceived as being alone anywhere in scriptures? Why did he need the myrad of angels? Why does he need to be worshipped? Logically, God is alone and perfect in himself, so why does he need to love?

My perspective is God doesn't need us, but for our own good we need to love him - I see a reflection of this idea in Deut 6:1-5.

Conceiving God as love, especially after watching the news, can be a tough ask. But sit on a cliff top at sunrise, and you might get that warm fuzzy feeling.

In a humanist sense, one is not perceived as loving unless he/she extends that love beyond the self. A principal aspect of love is it is unselfish.

In regards to the Son of God, who A.John calls the Logos, and we acknowledge as Jesus Christ there are several factors to consider. God the Father foreknows all things. For him to set himself up as a puppet master wouldn't accomplish much but to delegate his authority to another would be an indication that God the Father doesn't want to be a dictator. My view, is that God creates out of love, and the Son reciprocates not because he has to or from some intrinsic need, but because he personally experiences the love. As the humanists say "love begats love".

Throughout the ages, men have had a tough time just explaining human love. It is an even tougher ask to explain the type of unconditional love we find in the scriptures as delivered by the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit.

Whether or not you agree with the formula, it is a message we find in the NT. A.Paul often suggests the one body which is in Christ (ie: us) is bound in love through the Holy Spirit (cp: 2 Tim 1:7,14; Eph 3:17-19; 4:4-6). You might perceive this as an impersonal force. I perceive it as very real and personal.

it seems to me one other person apart from himself would have sufficedAgreed. But this would have been an introspective love. Under this scenario, it might be implied God needs to be loved and I think you agree that God is perfect alone - He needs nothing.

What need for a third?What needs he of man, or angels or any of creation?

Thinking on such propositions, might be why the Mormons think as they do, with their theory of many gods.

A question that might put things in perspective: What needs God of men in heaven (eg: 2 Pe 1:4). I think part of the answer is in the Holy Spirit.

In a God sense, it is not a need but an expression of God. In a man sense it is a gift, God directly interacting in our lives.

Alam pointed out in one of his posts, the NT does seem to attribute personality to the Holy Spirit. Modalist would point out that the HS is the third mode in which God personally interacts with man. Orthodox trinitarians would argue that it is the third "economy", the first being the YHWH presence in the establishment of the covenants, the 2nd, the sacrifice of Jesus and the third the free gift from God that sustains us - the first two economies are related as personal and physical and the third is related as being the same.

My view is that the purpose of the Son and the Spirit, is to bring all creation in heaven or earth, whether angels or men, to glorify in the Father.

Augustine has a hard time with precisely this, and he could not adequately explain the (a) function, (b) need, and (c) purpose of the holy spirit in the trinitarian "dance of love".It is a matter of perspective of whether he defined the spirit adequately. If we reflect on the love construction of a perfect family, we could conceive a similar construct in the family of God.

I'm not entirely happy with Augustine's explanation but then again my views are influenced by the east, who disagree with the views of the latins.

Now, the Hindu perichoresis(which has not love for it's primary motive ) acounts for the third by ascribing to each respectively functions of creation(Brahma), preservation(Vishnu) and destruction/ rejuvenation(Shiva).As I understand the Hindu teaching there are four gods, plus concubines, all being detached and disinterested in mankind - we are a bother to them!

The Hindu trinity seems more self absorbed. If I recall they have their own worlds, where they reside with their concubines, as far away from Brahma and men as they can get.

I don't think the "three" thing is important, especially as if at the least we take the Spirit as an emanation of God (as the JWs do) we have, after the end times, myriads participating in the Godhead (cp: Rev 3:21 with 22:3)

Since the trinitarian perichoresis is based primarily upon the love theme relationship (unlike it's Hindu counterpart), what is the rational for including a third person in this tango of love , if all the requirements of love could have been satisfied by only two persons?

That's your problem, in a nutshell.
Two people can unselfishly love one another, become even as one flesh. But ultimately their love is introspective and might only ever be eros and never reaching agape. Love is about sharing, and we have the family relationship as an example. We love our children, their children and so on. A.Paul is very big on this theme.

As an example: Why do childless couples, those that can't have children, adopt? Is the love between them inadequate? Or is there a human desire to express and share mutual love? Maybe the answer is in Genesis, where we are told mankind was created in the image of God!

Everywhere we turn in scripture, we see idealized love expressed in the form of a "two-ness", not a "three-ness". -- Adam and Eve, Christ and his Church, Israel and the Father, Abraham and Sarah, etc. Rember also that Jesus condemned polygamy and told the Israelites the idealized state to be one man one wife, and not one man two wives, etc.etc.
And everywhere in scripture we find examples of when idealized love becomes eros. God's command to Adam & Eve is to fill the earth. Love always goes beyond two. Abraham & Sarah are a fine example. What need did they have for Isaac?

Yes ofcourse I agree, love is inclusive, but love perfected is always engendered as a "two-ness" in the bible so that the Saints (though they number in the millions) are yet one body ( one bride,"compound unity"!) married to Christ, so that Israel though it number in the many, is yet one wife of God, and so forth. Negative connotations , imperfections invariably come to the fore when "two-ness" is exceeded , so that we get notions of polygamy, orgy, adultry, etc..Negative connotations immediately come to mind when love is limited to two-ness. For a start, the scriptures say God must always be loved and in our lives, so immediately we have three. This is a safe gaurd against love becoming between a man and woman introspective, agape is bound to become eros as the divorce courts will attest (without agape all we have is a sex buddy).

Enter the family arrangement and we have a progression of love, continuous from one generation to another (assuming God guides the family).

If the trinity doctrine is true, it would mean relational love is perfected within a "three-ness" framework, and not with two persons, for the Godhead's love(3 persons instead of 2 persons) is naturally to be considered ideal. It would mean Adam and Eve lacked a third person in their relationship to perfect their love.True. That might be why they had kids.

A.Paul says above all love is unselfish!

If Alam is reading this, I'd be interested in your view - which I'd perceive as theologically neutral. I'm attempting to discuss Pythagoras' issues as a "trinitarian" who has more-or-less a semi-Arian perspective.

apostoli

February 10th 2006, 11:10 PM

Hi Pythagoras,

A qualifier (correction) to part of my last post...

Negative connotations immediately come to mind when love is limited to two-ness. For a start, the scriptures say God must always be loved and in our lives, so immediately we have three.In truth the scriptures seem to suggest that ultimately all are to be as if one. As you pointed out even the family of God, we are though many members, one. It is the concept of one that we may need to consider. I'd suggest all our thoughts are for mutual benefit. All selfishness leaves us.

alam

February 11th 2006, 08:12 PM

Hi Pythagoras,

I think you will agree that God, the Father, is perfect alone. And in judeo-christianity that is our starting point.

The way I see it: the whole scriptural message is about God's interaction with man, initially his chosen people and finally the people who choose God. Apart from this interaction, the scriptures speak about our perception of God. As an example: In my post to Oldmonk regarding the sacrifices, I attempt to highlight that though YHWH instigated the sacrifices, they were according to A.Paul as a schoolmaster. I quoted Nehemiah, Psalms, Ezekiel and Malachi to show that YHWH wasn't interested in the sacrifices themselves but the heart condition, motivation that was behind them. And this is another consideration of judeo-christianity. Why does God care about us? A.John in his first epistle sums it up because "God is love!"

A couple of questions to ponder: Why is not God perceived as being alone anywhere in scriptures? Why did he need the myrad of angels? Why does he need to be worshipped? Logically, God is alone and perfect in himself, so why does he need to love?

My perspective is God doesn't need us, but for our own good we need to love him - I see a reflection of this idea in Deut 6:1-5.

Conceiving God as love, especially after watching the news, can be a tough ask. But sit on a cliff top at sunrise, and you might get that warm fuzzy feeling.

In a humanist sense, one is not perceived as loving unless he/she extends that love beyond the self. A principal aspect of love is it is unselfish.

In regards to the Son of God, who A.John calls the Logos, and we acknowledge as Jesus Christ there are several factors to consider. God the Father foreknows all things. For him to set himself up as a puppet master wouldn't accomplish much but to delegate his authority to another would be an indication that God the Father doesn't want to be a dictator. My view, is that God creates out of love, and the Son reciprocates not because he has to or from some intrinsic need, but because he personally experiences the love. As the humanists say "love begats love".

Throughout the ages, men have had a tough time just explaining human love. It is an even tougher ask to explain the type of unconditional love we find in the scriptures as delivered by the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit.

Whether or not you agree with the formula, it is a message we find in the NT. A.Paul often suggests the one body which is in Christ (ie: us) is bound in love through the Holy Spirit (cp: 2 Tim 1:7,14; Eph 3:17-19; 4:4-6). You might perceive this as an impersonal force. I perceive it as very real and personal.

Agreed. But this would have been an introspective love. Under this scenario, it might be implied God needs to be loved and I think you agree that God is perfect alone - He needs nothing.

What needs he of man, or angels or any of creation?

Thinking on such propositions, might be why the Mormons think as they do, with their theory of many gods.

A question that might put things in perspective: What needs God of men in heaven (eg: 2 Pe 1:4). I think part of the answer is in the Holy Spirit.

In a God sense, it is not a need but an expression of God. In a man sense it is a gift, God directly interacting in our lives.

Alam pointed out in one of his posts, the NT does seem to attribute personality to the Holy Spirit. Modalist would point out that the HS is the third mode in which God personally interacts with man. Orthodox trinitarians would argue that it is the third "economy", the first being the YHWH presence in the establishment of the covenants, the 2nd, the sacrifice of Jesus and the third the free gift from God that sustains us - the first two economies are related as personal and physical and the third is related as being the same.

My view is that the purpose of the Son and the Spirit, is to bring all creation in heaven or earth, whether angels or men, to glorify in the Father.

It is a matter of perspective of whether he defined the spirit adequately. If we reflect on the love construction of a perfect family, we could conceive a similar construct in the family of God.

I'm not entirely happy with Augustine's explanation but then again my views are influenced by the east, who disagree with the views of the latins.

As I understand the Hindu teaching there are four gods, plus concubines, all being detached and disinterested in mankind - we are a bother to them!

The Hindu trinity seems more self absorbed. If I recall they have their own worlds, where they reside with their concubines, as far away from Brahma and men as they can get.

I don't think the "three" thing is important, especially as if at the least we take the Spirit as an emanation of God (as the JWs do) we have, after the end times, myriads participating in the Godhead (cp: Rev 3:21 with 22:3)

Two people can unselfishly love one another, become even as one flesh. But ultimately their love is introspective and might only ever be eros and never reaching agape. Love is about sharing, and we have the family relationship as an example. We love our children, their children and so on. A.Paul is very big on this theme.

As an example: Why do childless couples, those that can't have children, adopt? Is the love between them inadequate? Or is there a human desire to express and share mutual love? Maybe the answer is in Genesis, where we are told mankind was created in the image of God!

And everywhere in scripture we find examples of when idealized love becomes eros. God's command to Adam & Eve is to fill the earth. Love always goes beyond two. Abraham & Sarah are a fine example. What need did they have for Isaac?

Negative connotations immediately come to mind when love is limited to two-ness. For a start, the scriptures say God must always be loved and in our lives, so immediately we have three. This is a safe gaurd against love becoming between a man and woman introspective, agape is bound to become eros as the divorce courts will attest (without agape all we have is a sex buddy).

Enter the family arrangement and we have a progression of love, continuous from one generation to another (assuming God guides the family).

True. That might be why they had kids.

A.Paul says above all love is unselfish!

If Alam is reading this, I'd be interested in your view - which I'd perceive as theologically neutral. I'm attempting to discuss Pythagoras' issues as a "trinitarian" who has more-or-less a semi-Arian perspective.

Hello Apostoli:

I mostly agree with your post. It seems to be difficult for many people (not necessarily including Pythagoras; I think I see where he is coming from here) to disentangle agape from eros. Some of this may be due to both being represented by the same English word. In Latin, distinct words could be used-- caritas for agape, amicitia for philia, amor for eros. In English there are traces of this in 1 Cor. 13, KJV, which uses "charity" for agape. The Latin word 'caritas' seems to be cognate to another Greek word, kharis or grace/undeserved kindness: cf. John 1:16/ Eph. 3:19.

With the Father and the Son, we would not be dealing with man-woman love, whose biblical ideal is monogamy, but something more like father-son love, although there is a Greek word for that too and it is not used; scripture simply calls God and Christ's mutual love "agape". I agree that all genuine love, as opposed to mere desire or appetition, involves agape, but that it takes on additional elements from the kinds of relationships in which it occurs: the basis for distinctions of "eros," "philia," and "storge."

To remain close to biblical analogies, God and the Messiah are like Father and Son; the Messiah and His Church- as a body- are like bridegroom and bride; and the Holy Spirit is the friend of the bridegroom. God the Father is the Head of His household, which includes His Son.

agaph agapē

love : esp. brotherly love, charity ; the love of God for man and of man for God, N.T. II. in pl. a love-feast, Ib. (Deriv. uncertain)

The Septuagint used this term to translate Hebrew 'ahªbhāh.

erwV erōs
love, Trag :--love of a thing, desire for it... in pl. loves, amours, Eur.; in Soph., of passionate joy...

This word does not appear in the NT. It seems to have had an acquisitive connotation: Plato's Symposium is the famous discussion.

filia philia

[i]friendly love, affection, friendship, distinct from erwV, as Lat. amicitia from amor,... 2. fondness for a thing, Plat. filikoV... of or for a friend, befitting a friend, friendly...

This word and its verb appear in the NT, eg.: Matt. 6:5; John 11:3; 21:15-17; 1 Cor. 16:22; Titus 3:15; James 4:4; Rev. 3:19; plus some compound words, philanthropia (love of man, Titus 3:4) and philadelphia (brotherly love, Rom. 12:10). The word for "friend" is philos (John 15:13-15).

storgh storgē

love, affection, of parents and children...

This likewise does not seem to appear in the NT, although a word astorgos, meaning the lack of this kind of love, appears in Rom. 1:31 and 2 Timothy 3:3.

Yours in Christ,

Pythagoras

February 11th 2006, 09:03 PM

Greetings apostoli, God bless and peace in Christ,

I think you will agree that God, the Father, is perfect alone.

Yes.

A couple of questions to ponder: Why is not God perceived as being alone anywhere in scriptures? Why did he need the myrad of angels? Why does he need to be worshipped? Logically, God is alone and perfect in himself, so why does he need to love?

You correctly answer your own question:
"My perspective is God doesn't need us, but for our own good we need to love him - I see a reflection of this idea in Deut 6:1-5."

The bible says God created the Universe not because he needed fellowship (i.e. "a relationship") but to reflect his glory. Man was created for the same, "for the praise of his glory (Eph. 1:12)."

Conceiving God as love, especially after watching the news, can be a tough ask.

God is love indeed, yet he also allows us free will, hence the propensity and actuality of evil in the world. On a related note, when trinitarians say "God is love" they really mean God is "relational love", because to them God could not be who he is without relational love. This view is totally not collaborated by scripture. In this regard the bible tells us God loved us even before he had a relationship with us, before the foundation of the world ! -- Eph. 1:4, Romans, 8:29-30 , 2 Tim. 1"9 etc.

Infact scripture says God chose us in the beginning the same way he chose Christ, and I will elaborate on one instance of this particular point further down in this post.

But sit on a cliff top at sunrise, and you might get that warm fuzzy feeling.

Indeed. Every thought and action which comes from God is lovely, because God is love. "Consider the lillies of the fields, how they neither sow nor toil, yet your Father in Heaven clothes them.." Pure love, he exudes love by his every action. God's every motion is love.
God is patient, he is kind, protecting, trusting, perserving , unenvious, unboastful, etc. not because he has a relationship with Christ but because he is by nature so. He is not a needy God who is what he is because of another. The reverse is true, we(including Christ) are who we are because of who God is. Thus God says to Moses, --"I shall be what I shall be". Please note that Christ was chosen and loved by God exactly as the Saints were also chosen and loved by him , before he had a relationship with them:

1 Peter 1:20, "He(Christ) was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake."

: Ephesians 1:4 “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.”

The terms of refrence "chosen before the creation of the world" are exactly the same in both scriptures.

Whether or not you agree with the formula, it is a message we find in the NT. A.Paul often suggests the one body which is in Christ (ie: us) is bound in love through the Holy Spirit (cp: 2 Tim 1:7,14; Eph 3:17-19; 4:4-6).

Unfortunately the holy spirit is not another person but simply God's presence , his force. This is a circular argument on your part since you think the holy spirit is another person..

Agreed. But this would have been an introspective love. Under this scenario, it might be implied God needs to be loved and I think you agree that God is perfect alone - He needs nothing.

Ofcourse our God does not "need to be loved", infact we are the needy ones, needing His love.

What needs he of man, or angels or any of creation?

He needs them not, God created them because He is charitable.

Alam pointed out in one of his posts, the NT does seem to attribute personality to the Holy Spirit.

There are many scriptures which negate the notion that the holy spirit is a person (but that's a discussion for another thread, as it will take us too far off course). Also, the holy spirit is not a "mode of God" as the Pentacostals("Oneness") believe, but rather the holy spirit is God's influence over his children, just as the Devil's spirit also influences his own children .

As I understand the Hindu teaching there are four gods, plus concubines, all being detached and disinterested in mankind - we are a bother to them!

Hindus will cry foul and accuse you of maligning their faith. Just like their trinitarian/Catholic brethen, Hindus claim to believe in One God and claim not to worship idols:

Here's something from Hindus themselves. (the web-link is furnished at the end of this post) :

Question-1) What is the Hindu definition of God-monotheistic or polytheistic?

Hindus believe in one supreme God who created the universe and who is worshipped as Light, Love and Consciousness. Hindus believe that there is one all-pervasive God which energizes the entire universe. We can see Him in the life shining out of the eyes of humans and all creatures. Hindus also believe in many devas who perform various kinds of functions, like executives in a large corporation. These should not be confused with God. There is one Supreme God only. What is sometimes confusing to non-Hindus is that we may call this one God by many different names, according to our tradition. Truth for the Hindu has many names, but that does not make for many truths. Hindus believe in one God, one humanity and one world.

Question-5) Are Hindus idol worshippers?
No Hindus are not idol worshippers.It is about graven images, like the Christian cross with Jesus hanging on it, or statues of Mother Mary and Saint Theresa, or the holy Kabaa in Mecca, or the Adigranth enshrined in the Golden Temple in Amritsar, or the Arc and the Torah of the Jews or the image of a meditating Buddha.

As an example: Why do childless couples, those that can't have children, adopt? Is the love between them inadequate?

I would say you're missing the point here. I could ask you a similar question, by the same token:

Question: Why do you think Adam and Eve felt no compunction to have children before "the fall"? Was the love between them "inadequate" because they were childless?

For a start, the scriptures say God must always be loved and in our lives, so immediately we have three.

How is that three? I count only two?

Negative connotations immediately come to the mind when love is limited to two-ness.

on the contrary. Everytime there are more than two people in a relationship(marriage) there is trouble. Woudn't you agree? -- 1 Cor. 7:1-5, 1 Cor. 6:15-18, Ez. 16:27-30, etc. etc.

If Alam is reading this, I'd be interested in your view - which I'd perceive as theologically neutral.

Yes, I would be very interested in knowing what alam thinks; he's always even handed and earnestly seeks the truth.

sources consulted:

http://hindu.freeservers.com/ (http://hindu.freeservers.com/)