One God: Why Does it Matter?
June 4th, 2009 by Sean
I have often heard fellow biblical unitarians say regarding trinitarians things like:
- “it doesn’t matter; they won’t listen to me anyhow”
- “we should not speak about this issue because it is divisive”
- “let’s not advertise the fact (that we don’t believe in the Trinity) because we don’t want to deal with being called a cult or heretics”
- “we should just focus on the things we have in common with other Christians, like loving God and one another”
- “the Bible does not teach anything about the Trinity, so why should I teach that it is true or false? There are more important things to talk about like pornography and drug addiction
Then there are the youth who say:
- “So what if I go to this church instead of my parents’ church, they have more relevant music and more inspiring sermons…besides all of my friends go there…you aren’t so narrow-minded that you think because they believe Jesus is God that they aren’t Christians are you?”
Should we be zealous to share with others, especially Christians, that God is one and not three? If so, what’s the balance? How would you respond to these types of questions?
The concept of the Trinity is one of those more advanced topics that young believers who were raised on it are not ready to accept. However, I think it is important to stand behind your beliefs and supply them when the situation calls for it.
I think a good way to respond to these types of questions would be something along the lines of this:
“If you’re ready to openly discuss the Trinity and are not going to dismiss monotheism with a wave of your hand, I have information that you should hear. But if all you want is justification for continuing what you’re doing, I shouldn’t be talking to you about this.”
Yet another thoughtful post!
It would be difficult and awkward, but I would confront the issue head on AFTER it was brought up. If someone didn’t want to fellowship with me afterwards, I’d make every effort to find out why and try to make amends AFTER they show me their “trinity” in the Scriptures.
If I was still unsuccessful, I’d point out to the Scriptures (again) that show God, the Father, is the God and Father of Jesus, Whom God made Lord and Christ.
If I was yet again unsuccessful, I’d go talk to someone else…
What about the idea of promoting this idea…of really trying to help our fellow Christians see the truth on this issue?
Great topic Sean! I’m very intersted in hearing the thoughts of others on this subject, as I myself find it difficult at times to discuss the subject. I am VERY passionate about showing how the trinity is false and how Scripture, logic & common sense, and history all testify to that fact. But it can be difficult when someone else is equally zealous towards a belief in the trinity.
As we’ve mentioned before on other subjects (i.e. the immortal soul belief vs. conditional immortality), you just have to be patient and look for opportunities. When someone is in a receptive mood then they’re much more willing to think about the subject honestly. You know the old saying…”you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink”? In this area it is much more like “Often you can’t begin to get a horse to drink because he won’t let you even lead him to the water.” Of course we’re talking about people and not horses so maybe we should just simply tell them about the water and then if and when they get thirsty, they’ll go looking for it on their own.
I really think that the biggest tool in getting someone to begin to think about being “thirsty” is to use common sense & logic. Things like the following should get all but the totally brainwashed to give the subject some serious thought:
Messiah means “the anointed of God”, how can the anointed OF God be God?
Jesus died. God cannot.
Jesus was tempted. God cannot be tempted.
Jesus is called the Son OF God. How can a Son be the same literal being as his Father?
Jesus is called a man. God says he is NOT a man.
Jesus is termed a man who is a “Mediator between God & men“. By definition a mediator is a separate entity from the two parties.
And Jesus says all sorts of things that deny him from the equation of being God by saying that “My Father is greater than I“, “There is none good but one, that is God“, says the he has a God – “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God“, etc. etc. etc.
Just bring up any of these 100 different arguments that can’t be logically ignored and all but the most hardened should give it pause.
I agree with you, Ron.
I think being patient and waiting for the opportunity to reveal truth to antagonists is a Scriptural example. There are times when promoting the idea in spite of the opportunity could be useful, too.
But, I think the most obvious “devil’s tail” about the whole thing is language: Jesus is the Son of God. No son is his own father.
Some people may be offended at that. A brother of mine believes in the trinity and when shown that Jesus has a God and a Father (which indicates His origination from Him), I was told something along the lines of “well, no one would ever say there’s a time when Jesus didn’t exist”.
But I think the uniqueness of Jesus of Nazareth and His unparalleled life, death, resurrection, and ministry – which show Him to be the Son of God – make it hard for human beings who only know things through contrast to label him. We want to say, “He’s God, the Father” or others “He’s just a human” or yet others, “He’s 100% God and 100% man”. In fact, from my understanding (correct me), He is entirely unique – the Son of God; God perfectly manifested in human form.
Do I sound like I’m contradicting myself?
But Sean, I agree with you, too. There should be an active promotion, too, pending spiritual direction. (For example, if you’re listening to a sermon at a funeral and someone mentions the trinity, for manner’s sake, you probably wouldn’t start an arguement there. But you could invite the guy / gal over for some green tea and talk about it.)
NOTE: I meant to say that Jesus, Lord and Christ, doesn’t fit any of the labels in my reply above.
He is God perfectly manifested in flesh because God, the God and Father of Jesus, made Him so.
Just my opinion, I know I can be very stubbern at times especially when what I believe is the truth about God, I feel a good way to approach this subject would be to ask first if the person you are speaking to believes the bible is the truth from God. If they say yes then you can continue to show that person the many many scriptures that point out the difference between God and Jesus and that they are not 1. Even how the old testement stresses God is one and that he is a jelous God, and the new testament stresses you can not get to God without going through his son Jesus. Again to start out the conversation with “Do you believe the bible is the truth?”, this may ease the person and open them up to hear your ideas instead of pushing them to believe what you have to say.
We as Christians should be able to agree on some things in common, and what we have in common should be the scriptures,
the same spirit Jesus gave, and God, the same Father.
We should be able to agree that Jesus and God are one, for there
is that sense given in the scripture by Jesus, and we should also come to agree that they are not one and the same, even though
the scriptures tells us they are the same, yet with some difference,
for one sent his Son, while the other obeyed the Father and became the sacrifice.
Both are the same in godliness, having the same holiness and virtues. Both have always spoken that which is truth and is agreeable to both. When Jesus said to the Father, “Not my will be
done, but your’s”, that was in agreement with the Father. No doubt
we can see that the Father understands the pains of our earthly bodies and has compassion on all, and that he is not one who can
not be touched by them. The prayer of Jesus in the garden no doubt touched the heart of God.
We really do have so much in common. All Christians are so much
more alike than they are different. That we do have in common, though we tend to differ on different things. We tend to do so in the same manner and for many of the same reasons which do not
always immediately appear.
“Both are the same in godliness, having the same holiness and virtues. Both have always spoken that which is truth and is agreeable to both. When Jesus said to the Father, “Not my will be
done, but your’s”, that was in agreement with the Father.”
Ray
are you sure
Jesus was once offended by someone who implied that it was Jesus that was good when Jesus knew that God was only Good and without His Father Ways He wouldnt know good from evil.Jesus agreed becaused Knew that God was Just and True.
Jesus knows he would be just a man if it wasnt for His belief that no one was equal to God and without God He wouldnt of even existed
Matthew 19
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments
In Matthew 19:16, we see as always, Jesus as the humble servant
of God, always giving God the praise, for such purposes he came into the world, to show us the way of salvation, the way of God which is in himself.
I am certain that Jesus is offered by God to the world as many times as there is a sinner in need of salvation, as long as there is
still the condition of the heart and the condition of his word which
makes that grace still possible to receive, though Jesus once offered himself for all according to the will of God.
Without the Father, Jesus could not have done this. By his instruction he knew good from bad and always chose the good.
Yes Robert. Jesus knew God who is just and true. On so much
we do agree. God knows and always knew that Jesus is good,
for he is that perfect gift that came down from the Father of lights
in whom is no variableness nor shadow of turning. Jesus is the
wisdom of God from on high, who is made that unto us. Just as sound and steadfast as God is, so also is Jesus, who is the faithfulness of God, the true foundation and cornerstone of our
faith.
Q. Is Jesus always the humble servant of God?
Was he humble when he overthrew the tables of the money changers?
He came riding in on a donkey, yet he had great zeal for the things
of God. He’s both the lion and the lamb.
Jesus is the
wisdom of God from on high, who is made that unto us. Just as sound and steadfast as God is, so also is Jesus, who is the faithfulness of God, the true foundation and cornerstone of our
faith.
No Ray Jesus has that wisdom which he learned from His Father, God is that wisdom.
the rest is right on the money
Those who are spiritual often speak the wisdom of God in a mystery.
There’s a universal language among those that seek God, just as
God did on Pentecost. It’s the language of praise. One way to praise him is to speak his wonderful works. Another way is to speak of his character. Either way, our praises are heard by God and judged by heaven. The Lord leads us in praise to God by the
holy spirit which he has given us for the keeping of the kingdom.
Such a thing is a great resposibility and we need the blood of Christ
to be our covering by faith. Each one of us will have a unique sound. There will be creativity in our worship. We need flexibility as well as discipline.
Some will be poets, some songwriters, muscians, some will be teachers, pastors, helps and whatever. Some will teach people how to move in worship and praise. Some will keep us in sound
doctrine. Every gift of God is necessary.
It’s in this universal language where we will find unity. Also, it will
take down strongholds. Walls that have divided the body of Christ
will come down.
It will take time in the scriptures and practice to shine up our armor
and we need an understanding of the gospel to put it on.
What about the man who works out a theological system he believes he can prove to everyone, that he is right by using the Bible?
Will that make him right, and if so, in whose eyes?
What’s the man’s motive? Is it to prove that he is right?
Or is he trying to prove his doctrine is right?
Why does he want to prove his doctrine is right? Is it to prove he’s
not following a wrong doctrine, and if so, why?
So then is his doctrine necessary for salvation? Then he can justify
what he’s doing, right?
I suppose if a man can prove that nobody will be saved unless he
receives the doctrine, then he can require that everyone must agree with his doctrine to be right, is that it?
But what’s the man’s real motive? Is it that all people will be saved
and come to the knowledge of the truth? But how will they come to
the knowledge of the truth, by his doctrinal system only, by his method only, by his way only? Is Jesus his way? No doubt he will
confess that Jesus is the only way to the Father, but is Jesus really
his way?
His way may be one way to share the gospel, but is it the only way that will bring people into the kingdom of heaven? If his way is not
the only way to do it, then does the man have the right or authority
to require that all men agree with him?
Has he added anything to the simplicity of the gospel, and if so, is
such an addition required? Is the man saying that the gospel as it
is said in the Bible is not complete? Is he saying that his doctrine
completes the Bible?
If he added anything to the Bible, does anyone have the right to
disagree with him, as long as their disagreement does not violate
any part of the Bible?
Is he saying that his doctrine and the use of it, accurately interprets the Bible? Are there other ways to accurately interpret the Bible? Are other ways as good as his? Is his the best interpretation of the Bible? Can he prove he has been led by the authorized interpreter of the Bible, the holy spirit, and even then,
is that the only way the holy spirit interprets the Bible?
Does the man use his doctrine to seem to be somewhat of an authority? Is that his motive? Does he like to be an authority and if so, why?
Does the man reject (silently or otherwise) truth he hears from others, but insist that his doctrine is true, and if so, why?
Does the man argue with others if they are saying the same thing, but in a different way, and if so, why?
Is the man inflexible and if so, why?
Those are a lot of questions. But I think Sean’s question was: does the issue of the divinity of Christ, whether he is worshipped as our Saviour, God, and Creator matter?
But the question posed presumed that a unitarian would be taking the initiative to speak with a trinitarian.
So how would you feel if someone came to you and said, “I think it is extremely important for you to recognize Jesus as God and Christ?” and wanted to talk to you?
Would you be willing to talk to them? Or would you decide that it doesn’t matter, “because they won’t listen to me anyhow?”
For Ron S. I have a question. You said:
Jesus was tempted. God cannot be tempted.
Do you not remember when Jesus quoted “Thou shalt not tempt the LORD your God?” Do you know where he was quoting from? What is the rest of the quote?
Deuteronomy 6:16 KJV
(16) Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.
You might also want to consider the impact that these verses have on your argument:
Psalms 78:18 And they tempted God in their heart by asking meat for their lust.
Psalms 78:41 Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.
Psalms 78:56 Yet they tempted and provoked the most high God, and kept not his testimonies:
Psalms 106:14 But lusted exceedingly in the wilderness, and tempted God in the desert.
Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
You said you had a 100 arguments that could not be “logically ignored” that eliminated Jesus from the equation of God. If that was one of your arguments, you proved too much: you totally eliminated God from the equation of God.
I just noticed that the 100 different arguments you mentioned was a link to a literal “100 different arguments.” It seems to me that the majority of these are simply illogical, and not even serious arguments at all.
Do you have a listing of any serious arguments that demonstrate that Jesus was not God that you’d be willing to demonstrate or defend? If you wish to persuade anybody, you need a sound argument first.
Andrew Patrick,
How about the simple one Jesus himself quotes in Mar 12.18 and John 17.3?
Regarding your “tempting God” proof texts. We can try tempting God or even making ourselves out to be “gods”, it doesn’t disprove the simple fact that He cannot be tempted nor usurped as the only true God and Father.
Dear Xavier,
Obviously, God is not cast down from heaven when someone tries to tempt him, but people do try to tempt God (otherwise, there wouldn’t be a commandment not to tempt the LORD your God.)
By the same measure, it is a fundamentally flawed argument to claim “Jesus was not God” because he allowed Satan to try to tempt him in the wilderness (and notice that Satan also left when Jesus commanded.)
So, I’m looking at this serious argument you’re posing… where Jesus quotes in Mark 12:18 and John 17:3
Mar 12:18
(18) Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,
Joh 17:3
(3) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Sorry, I don’t get it. I don’t understand the argument. Could you explain it to me please? Where is this serious argument that demonstrates that Jesus was not God in the flesh, in the normal everyday meaning of the term?
I have a question for you though: I’ve gotten the impression that quite a few people here do not admit the pre-existence of Christ.
But just two verses down from your “proof against the Divinity of Christ” Jesus says thus:
Joh 17:5
(5) And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Doesn’t that seem to indicate that Jesus existed before the world was? And before the world was, the Hebrew scriptures are clear: “In the beginning, God…” (see Genesis 1:1)
That prayer seems like a pretty strong statement of divinity to me, easily understandable by anyone who was listening, that had ever read or heard the first words of the Bible.
I suppose this verse might also tie in with your quote from John (the words are similar) although I’m not sure where you were going with that…
Joh 11:25
(25) Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
1Jn 5:20
(20) And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
Ergo, Jesus is the true God, the resurrection, and eternal life.
-Andrew
Dear Andrew,
In John 17 Jesus calls “the Father” [v. 1] “the only true God”. So, in what way is Jesus also “God”?
The writer of John is wholly concerned with revealing the “glory of God” in the human Jesus, a glory that at times is equally applied to both. But always belongs to another one, whom he calls “the only true God”.
Hence, “the glory of God” is revealed to us as “the word become flesh [sarx]” dwelling among us, a glory that was full of truth and grace as the only-one-of-a-kind [monogenes] Son can express [1.14]:
In other words, the logos, doxa, sophia of God became embodied in the human Jesus. Which simply means, they were previously not literal preexistent beings. If so, where are they in the Hebrew scriptures?
The prophetic glory that was Jesus’ even before his birth was because God’s plan was for him to be the glorious redeemer of Creation. This plan was so well defined by the body of prophecy spoken and written about the Coming One [cp. Gen 3.15; Deu 18.15f.; 2Sam 7; Ps 2.7] that it was a virtual certainty. Therefore, it could be spoken about as a “reality” long before it was actually fulfilled.
In this same context Jesus could speak about the glory which he had with the Father “before the world was” [17.5]; a glory already received which in turn he gives to us, so that we may be one, just as he and the Father are one [17.22].
The perspective being Jesus’ heavenly and “eternal” glory transposed onto his earthly life and ministry; eternal because it began, not in some hereto unbeknownst “before all time” but in the mind of God.
By your interpreation and translation of 1Jn 5.10 then, according to Jesus’ saying and your own words, there are 2 Who are “only true God” then?
Going back to Sean’s original questions: “Should we be zealous to share with others, especially Christians, that God is one and not three? If so, what’s the balance? How would you respond to these types of questions?”
I have often struggled with this myself. How zealous should we be? How bold? Who should we talk to about this subject and when? If we belong to a Biblical Unitarian Body of Christ, and we have a guest, at what point do we let our beliefs known, especially if they don’t even understand what the Trinity is – which is most often the case…
My conclusion (thus far, since I am still a ‘work-in-progress’, growing & working my way through what I believe, maturing in Christ Jesus) is that if we are abiding in Christ, and God’s Spirit is dwelling within us, we will be given opportunities to share our faith in Jesus with others and be given the right heart and words to share.
Some who have a strong background in the Trinity doctrine only wish to debate Scripture and have no desire to really listen to Jesus’ words when he tells us that God is only one Lord, in Mark 12… and when that occurs, I think our obligation is to speak the truth in gentleness and love, but to understand that it is a work of the Holy Spirit to soften that person’s heart to hear and see, so we must be patient with them and pray for them. At the same time, I do not think we need to be silent or ashamed of who Jesus Christ is….fully man, but a uniquely born man with the title “Son of God” given to him, who is now exalted at the right hand of God, and will return to the earth to set up His Father’s Kingdom, to reign and rule as Lord Messiah. Some Trinitarians wish to silence us, by disfellowship from their churches, removing us from radio and television stations, from letting our writings be published or placed on the shelves in Christian bookstores.
The more I study it, the more I love this truth and see the beauty of it – and how it makes God’s plan complete. The more I understand it, the more I think it’s important to share. The more knowledge I gain about this plan and how Jesus and we fit into it, the more bold I become in speaking up and out about it, and the more important I see that we tell others, and not remain silent…even if it does stir up controversy or rattles some people’s traditional beliefs. If we don’t speak up, who will?
How do we balance it? Just as Jesus balanced the Kingdom message with practical living in the Sermon on the Mount. You can’t have one without the other. You can’t skip the foundational teachings of WHO we are to be obeying (God and His only begotten Son, Jesus), and WHY (to inherit the Kingdom of God) and teach only the obeying part. That approach provides us with little motivation to live obedient lives, and just supplies the law or the rules, without the loving relationship behind it and the promise of eternal life in the kingdom of God in the age toe come, which will both motivate us to seek God and find Him, and yearn for a day when all will be restored again. It’s the balanced approach of doctrines married to practical living teaching, and you can’t have one without the other. Balance.
Andrew Patrick,
Greetings. I hope you’re here on the kingdomready blog with an open mind and not just here to contemptuously defend the Trinity. I can’t speak for everyone here, but I know I’m always open to being proven wrong and changing my beliefs if need be. In fact I include in my prayers to God for Him to lead me to HIS truth – as it really is, not just how I presently think or want it to be. I’m interested in knowing Gods truth no matter where it leads me. Truth is truth and it will set us free. I sincerely hope that you feel the same.
Now let’s look at your questions/assertions.
Me: Yes I knew that Jesus was quoting the OT in his temptation, but thanks anyway for including the verse/answer. And while I understand your methodology of quoting verses that seem to say that God can be tempted, you’re going down the wrong path. You’re trying to paint a picture that the context doesn’t actually support.
All the verses you quote from Deuteronomy, Psalms, & Acts (BTW, you left out another that comes to mind – Exodus 17:2) are passages whose context speak of humans “testing” God. Most modern translations (e.g. NIV, RSV, NASB, etc.) show this fact by replacing the English word “tempt” with “test”. This is because in these instances you have humans not trying to tempt/entice God to sin (which is impossible), but to test Him in doing something for them. Hence why Jesus quoted Deut 6:16 when the Devil tried to get him to jump off the Temple and force God to send angels to save him from harm. Jesus correctly quoted Scripture to show that it is wrong for us the put God to the “test” or to try and force God into action at our discretion. However when James tells us that God cannot be tempted (James 1:13), he fully says that God cannot be tempted by evil – not that God cannot be tested by humans. The Greek word there is “apeirastos” (Strongs G551) which means “cannot be tempted by evil, not liable to temptation to sin”. James is saying that it is impossible for God to be tempted to sin. Yet Hebrews 4:15 tells us that Jesus was tempted in ALL ways just as all of humanity is tempted. “ALL” means all. Jesus was tempted with evil, he was tempted to sin. So with Jesus being tempted to sin, and God is never capable of being tempted to sin, the inescapable conclusion is that Jesus can NOT be God. That’s not hard now is it?
A visual equation of how this works would be the following (taken from Bruce Barham’s website article “How Messiah’s temptation PROVES he is NOT G-d!”:
It is impossible for G-d (A) to be tempted (C) – A is NOT equal to C
Yet Jesus (B) was tempted (C) – B IS equal to C
Therefore Jesus (B) is not G-d (A) – A is NOT equal to B
There’s also the small issue of Satan himself tempting Jesus. Is Satan not evil? How can God who cannot be tempted by evil have evil Satan tempting Him? Further still, why would Satan even begin to try and tempt Jesus if he was actually God in a man suit? Seems to me that it would be a pointless attempt from the start. Unless the whole event was like a play – staged to show a bogus temptation, then it doesn’t stand to reason that Satan (who is smart enough to deceive the whole world) would be out there tempting the Almighty in the form of Jesus. BTW, in the article link I included above, Bruce asks a very valid & important question regarding this issue – “Exactly who benefits from the teaching that Satan can tempt G-d?” If you haven’t thought it through, you should.
Nice try Andrew. It is obvious that you’re choosing to ignore all the evidence presented because you do not wish to deal with it. That’s fine if you can’t answer those challenges. Many trintitarians attempt to ignore or brush them aside because they just can’t answer them. However we all know that just because you wish to call them “illogical and not serious” does not make them that way in reality. They are serious and they are VERY logical.
Speaking of logical, how about dealing with the very first one I originally mentioned. The word “Messiah” (in Hebrew “Moshiach”) or “Christ” (in Greek – “Christos”) means “God’s anointed” or “the anointed of God”. The very word itself means that this individual is someone who is NOT God because God is the one who is anointing them. So either Jesus is God and is not the Messiah (which means we would need to dismiss all NT references to him being the Messiah and be like our brothers in Judaism still looking for God’s promised Messiah to come), or Jesus IS the Messiah – making him NOT God. Personally, I’m going with Jesus being God’s Messiah – not God!
- Ron S.
Dear Xavier,
Your question was: “By your interpretation and translation of 1Jn 5.10 then, according to Jesus’ saying and your own words, there are 2 Who are “only true God” then? ”
*Absolutely not.* That’s not what I said at all. But thank you for asking, and allowing me to clarify: this is the only true God:
Our Father which art in heaven, Saviour, Messiah, Immanuel, Jesus Christ, the Lion of Judah, the Lamb of God, the Word of God, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, he who was pierced, the Alpha and Omega, King of Salem, Prince of Peace, the LORD of Hosts, the LORD strong and mighty in battle, Melchizadek, Jehovah, Jesus, the Rock, the Chief Cornerstone, the Shepherd of Israel, the Strength of Israel, the Redeemer of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the daystar, the morning star, the bright and morning star, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the LORD our Righteousness, the Sun of Righteousness, the Almighty, the creator, the resurrection, and the life.
That is the only True God. But if you are looking for the best name that carries the gospel of eternal life, this is Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
The bible is not meant to be picked apart, with each word isolated from its greater context. “Search the scriptures, for they testify of me” – they must be read “here a little, and there a little, line upon line, and precept upon precept.” The scriptures must be read as a whole, not picked apart by Greek philosophers who despise the revealed God of the Hebrew Old Testament.
1 John 5:20 tells us that the Son of God is the true God, and eternal life, and he writes this so that we should believe on the Son.
But you specifically asked for focus on 1Jo 5:10, so I’ll quote:
1Jn 5:10 KJV
(10) He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
Since you asked for interpretation: If you cannot recognize God on earth, how can you claim that you are really paying attention to the will of God when he is far away in heaven?
Dear Ron S.
You wrote: “Greetings. I hope you’re here on the kingdomready blog with an open mind and not just here to contemptuously defend the Trinity.”
You may rest assured that I am not here to defend the Trinity.
You wrote: “I can’t speak for everyone here, but I know I’m always open to being proven wrong and changing my beliefs if need be. In fact I include in my prayers to God for Him to lead me to HIS truth – as it really is, not just how I presently think or want it to be. I’m interested in knowing Gods truth no matter where it leads me. ”
That’s a wonderful spirit. Please consider talking with me via email. If you click my name display on my post label, my address can be viewed in the Scribd profile it is linked to.
You wrote: “There’s also the small issue of Satan himself tempting Jesus. Is Satan not evil? How can God who cannot be tempted by evil have evil Satan tempting Him? Further still, why would Satan even begin to try and tempt Jesus if he was actually God in a man suit?”
I object to the phrase “man suit.” Regardless, Satan DOES tempt God. Here’s an Old Testament example.
Job 1:9-11
(9) Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
(10) Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
(11) But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
What Satan meant for evil, God was able to use for good. That is a consistent theme in the Bible, and also explains the skeptic’s question of “Why does God allow suffering?”
I’m going to tell you now that any argument that depends upon citing a Strong’s definition against the self-defined Biblical context is not going to be very convincing to me. Strong’s concordance is not inerrant. Scripture is.
Bruce Barham’s equation that you posted is an excellent example of Sophistry – a greek style of argument that is designed to seem plausible, but is fundamentally flawed. Here’s an example (one I made up yesterday: they are not hard):
A. God is in heaven
B. Jesus ascended to heaven from earth
C. Therefore, Jesus is not God
That’s a STUPID argument (and I can say this because I made up this example.) It ignores that God can exist in heaven and on earth at the same time, and limits God to where he cannot appear on earth. But this formula seems to fuel a large portion of what I’m hearing here to “disprove” the divinity of Christ.
You wrote: “Unless the whole event was like a play – staged to show a bogus temptation…”
This entire allowing Satan to be the “Prince of this world” (John 12:31, 16:11) is a play. God is the true King. Satan is allowed to play his hand, and those that are filthy may remain filthy still, and those that are righteous may remain righteous still. If this is not a “play” as you call it, then why didn’t God simply destroy Satan at the moment he sinned?
You wrote: “… then it doesn’t stand to reason that Satan (who is smart enough to deceive the whole world) would be out there tempting the Almighty in the form of Jesus. ”
Perspective time: Satan doesn’t stand to reason. He’s insane, evil, and desperately wicked. He knows his time is short, and when you’re stick in a no-win situation, you will try ANYTHING. If Satan were truly WISE and REASONABLE, he would serve God, because the wages of sin is death.
Thanks for bringing up “the Almighty”…
Rev 1:8
(8) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Now, consider, does it make ANY SENSE for Satan to fight against God after being released from the bottomless pit after the thousand years? What does he think it is supposed to accomplish? Does he think he will win? And at the same time, this is prophesied, and it will happen, nay, it SHALL HAPPEN. Yes, consider, for a moment, that this entire world is a stage.
You (indirectly) asked: “”Exactly who benefits from the teaching that Satan can tempt G-d?” If you haven’t thought it through, you should.”
Answer: Anyone that truly believes that God bore our infirmities, and loved us enough to walk a mile in our shoes – anyone who has faith strengthened that the devil could be allowed to take his best shot, under optimal conditions, and that our God is Still True, Perfect, truly called THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
You wrote: “Nice try Andrew. It is obvious that you’re choosing to ignore all the evidence presented because you do not wish to deal with it. ”
Andrew: No – I recognize a lot of those arguments because I’ve squashed a good many of them before, and I recognize the formula. Those are Greek-style word-play cookie-cutter arguments.
You wrote: “That’s fine if you can’t answer those challenges. ”
Andrew: That “100 list” is also a Spam attack. If someone is willing to stake their reputation on any particular point, I’ll answer it again. If someone is willing to consider that perhaps their logic supporting their position may not be 100% sound, then it’s perhaps worthwhile. In essence, do you consider any of those arguments SO SOUND that you are willing to “BET YOUR FAITH” on it? Find that argument, and then let’s talk.
You wrote: “Many trintitarians attempt to ignore or brush them aside because they just can’t answer them.”
Andrew: What do Trinitarians have to do with this discussion? Are you implying that I’m a closet Trinitarian?
You wrote: “Speaking of logical, how about dealing with the very first one I originally mentioned. The word “Messiah” (in Hebrew “Moshiach”) or “Christ” (in Greek – “Christos”) means “God’s anointed” or “the anointed of God”. ”
Andrew: Fair enough – challenge accepted.
You wrote: “The very word itself means that this individual is someone who is NOT God because God is the one who is anointing them. ”
Andrew: False logic off the start. First, the word “anointed” is often used in a sense where it is not God doing the anointing. Besides this, I can pull up five scriptures where it speaks of a person anointing themselves.
Andrew: Second, if we use it in the sense of a ceremonial designation of authority, who else would anoint God when he casts out the present ruler of this wicked world, when he comes as KING OF KINGS, and LORD OF LORDS, and establishes his kingdom for ever?
Andrew; Since you’re not talking about literal anointing (Point one) then we’re talking about symbolic anointing, and the symbols must have meaning.
Andrew: Third, scripture directly contradicts your assertion.
Heb 1:8
(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.
Andrew: Fourth, we have examples from history where a ruler has taken the crown themselves, and crowned themselves. I could give specific examples, but the point still stands, they crowned themselves with their own strength and by their own authority.
Andrew: the argument is proven false by the flawed assertion above. God is the King, high Priest, and our Savior by his own strength and authority, but his kingdom is not yet, and not of this world.
You concluded your argument: “So either Jesus is God and is not the Messiah (which means we would need to dismiss all NT references to him being the Messiah and be like our brothers in Judaism still looking for God’s promised Messiah to come), or Jesus IS the Messiah – making him NOT God. Personally, I’m going with Jesus being God’s Messiah – not God!”
Andrew: you have a fatal flaw that you have asserted (without evidence) that God cannot be our Saviour – that’s what Messiah means. Then why does scripture say that God is our Saviour, and why does our scripture call the risen Messiah both God, Lord, and LORD?
Isa 45:21
(21) Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
All these little word play arguments are insignificant in the face of clear use of identifying names and titles. If the scripture says that Jesus is LORD, let’s believe it, and then feel free to work out whatever model or analogy is necessary in your own mind, not the other way around.
Models like “divine agency” are *backwards* in this regard. They start with an unchallenged assumption that God remains in heaven, and does not come to earth, compatible with the Greek ethos of the philosophers. Then it has to explain away clear scriptures where God walked the earth and that names Jesus as God, not to mention numerous proofs that Jesus existed before the virgin birth. The personal, passionate, Hebrew view of God is thus abandoned in favor of a distant invisible untouchable God.
Yes, there is One God, but he is not the god of Plato. He is the God of Abraham, the I AM that spoke with Moses, the same that beheld Satan fall as lightning from heaven, the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords, he who was pierced (Zech 12:10), the judge of the quick and the dead, and he who sits upon the throne.
As you can see, I’m not here to defend the Trinity. It seems to have been formed by trying to mesh Greek philosophy and Paganism with the scriptures: it has a little of the Greek philosophy, but confined within the person of the “Father.”
You said that you hoped that I was here with an open mind: and I think you realize that that goes both ways. One cannot expect to persuade someone if they themselves do not allow fair chance to be persuaded. Again, I extend the invitation to exchange letters by email. This blog format is not as flexible as Word, and I don’t get a notification when someone gives me a question.
Take care,
-Andrew
To the “tempted with evil” argument (short version):
God cannot be *successfully* tempted with evil.
That’s the clear and obvious meaning. God cannot be turned evil. Someone can try all you like, and it won’t work. Read the verse in context, and don’t be drawn into a shallow argument founded on pretext:
Jas 1:13-15
(13) Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
(14) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
(15) Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Obviously, James uses “tempted” to mean “drawn away by lust, enticed, thus bringing forth sin.” It means “successfully tempted.” It’s an invalid argument to lift a partial phrase out of context, and bend the word to mean something else – no matter how many Greek lexicons are cited.
-Andrew
Andrew,
If Jesus is “the only true God” in 1Jn 5.20 and by his own word “the Father” is also “the only true God” in Jn 17.3 then there are 2 Who are “the only true God”. We can only come to this conclusion if we, as you say, “pick apart, with each word isolated from its greater context”, the Bible.
According to the testimony of Matthew, the human [anthorpos=man] Jesus had his “origin” [genesis, beginning] in the womb of the virgin Mary [Mat 1.1, 18]. God does not have a genesis!
According to the testimony of the angel of YHWH, Gabriel, in Luke he came into existence [gennao=ginaomai, Lu 1.32-35] via the God’s spirit. God is not a creation!
And according to the whole of the NT witness, the lord Jesus died for all those who may believe he is “the Christ, the Son of the Living God” [Mat 16.16], and not God.
I guess you do not agree with my interpretation of John 17.5 either? Since you didn’t comment or refute it.
For the record, even Trinitarian scholars are divided about the correct interpretation of I John 5:20. The wording is not unequivocal at all.
“And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.”
Does the pronoun “this” refer to Jesus or to “him that is true” which is God, whose son Jesus is. Grammatically it could go either way, and thus its interpretation is often determined by whichever preconceived view of Jesus one has. Yet there are even some scholars who are Trinitarians but nevertheless consider the pronoun “this” to refer to “him who is true” and don’t consider this verse a proof of the Trinity.
To Everyone
If anyone sent me a message that I did not reply to it is because a certain person is flooding the comments section with comments and I didn’t see your message….
Andrew,
Perhaps I assumed too much. I thought you were a Trinitarian. If you do not believe in the Trinity, then can I ask if you are a “Binitarian” or a “God family” believer like from a World Wide Church of God background?
Or now that I think more on some of your statements, are you actually a “Oneness” believer (Jesus & the Father are one in the same God – just different “modes” or “roles” for different times)?? What would you call your Christological view?
BTW, while I’m asking questions of you, something else came to mind. I don’t know if it was something you said in a previous comment awhile back or the fact that you use a lot of KJV verses, but I wanted to ask if you were a KJV Only believer or not.
I did enjoy your lengthy reply to me. Sure I may disagree with most of your points (and will comment more on them later). But at least it seemed to be somewhat of a fresh approach in places.
And I think we should continue our discussion here in the open forum of the blog comments. Sure it is a tad limiting. And yeah it would be nice if the architecture of the comments would send us automatic reply/update notices. But regardless of all of that, I think it will be beneficial for others to read and join in the conversation as we go. Maybe we all can learn/share something with one another – even if we have to ultimately agree to disagree. Let’s just try to be civil and not let our passions get the best of us.
Ron S.
Dear Xavier,
If I declined specific comment on anything, it was because either
1) I believed it to be redundant or
2) because of attempts to minimize the amount of necessary text.
In the case of John 17:5, “the glory that I had with thee before the world began” I thought that this would be redundant, because my answer is obvious: Jesus was God in the flesh, therefore he was the same God that created the world in the beginning.
Concerning your “genesis of man” argument: it has a very fatal flaw. In fact, if God himself physically appeared in front of you to tell you that you were wrong, you would disagree, because you’d reason that this person couldn’t be God, because he had a *beginning* when he appeared in front of you.
It’s not a stretch at all to interpret this in its most ordinary sense: Jesus appeared to us through a physical body, and unlike all previous appearances on earth, he didn’t take shortcuts: That physical body was conceived within Mary, and he is the mighty God, the everlasting Father, and the prince of peace.
You speak of the “whole of the NT witness” – and you have noted that it speaks that we should believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Do you realize what the implications are of that statement?
Joh 5:18
(18) Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
Joh 19:7
(7) The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
If claiming to be the Son of God simply meant to be a human messenger of the divine agency, as many of you seem to be claiming, they would never have charged Jesus with blasphemy. That would be no different than a prophet.
The testimony of the Gospels is that in the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God. That Word was Christ, and the finale of John’s Gospel is the confession of Thomas of “My Lord and my God.”
This is the meaning of “the Son of God” – the claim was blasphemy, unless, of course, you actually were God. And substantiating this, you have all the “difficult scriptures” for those that claim that Jesus was not yet 50 years old…
1) Jesus was before John the Baptist (John 1:30)
2) Jesus was before Abraham (John 8:58)
3) Jesus was there when Satan fell (Luke 10:18)
4) Jesus was with the Father before the world began (John 17:5)
5) Jesus already came from heaven (John 3:13, John 6:62)
Isa 44:24
(24) Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
Col 1:16
(16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And the simple thesis of the gospel of John is in the first three verses! In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:1-3
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Here’s the simple, obvious solution for your problem. Stop thinking of Jesus as being a different person. He was no mere representative of God, he was God. God can walk among us, in the flesh, whether we recognize him or not, and operate heaven at the same time.
He can do that because he is bigger than us – after all, he is God.
I’ll leave you with a riddle, nay, even a prophecy:
Pro 30:4
(4) 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?
Now, if you tell me “God the Father” in the Unitarian sense, when has God ascended and descended from heaven? But if you answer “Jesus the Son” in the Trinitarian sense, what is his son’s name? This prophecy causes problems for both models of God.
Joh 6:62
(62) What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
The prophecy has a simple answer: JESUS, our Lord and our God.
He is the King of Glory, the only one who has ascended into the hill of the LORD, with clean hands and a pure heart, who received his blessing from the LORD, and as the Psalmist prophesied, he that ascended to heaven is none other than:
1) the LORD of strong and mighty, (Psa 24:8)
2) the LORD mighty in battle, (Psa 24:8)
3) the LORD of Hosts. (Psa 24:10)
Unless someone wants to step up and claim that someone else is this King of Glory (has David ascended to the heavens?) there are no other candidates. Why do you think that Peter pointed out that David had not ascended to heaven in Acts 2, if not in reference to this very psalm?
By the way: Christian apologists were using that psalm to demonstrate that the claim of “going to heaven when you die” was blasphemy against the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as early as 158 AD…. see Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew” .. because the King of Glory was none other than God alone, that is, our Christ, whom we called Jesus.
Take care,
-Andrew
Dear Ron S,
If you email me, I’ll tell you all about my background. You made some pretty good guesses. Regardless, I’ve had to change where I’ve been wrong before, so it doesn’t help me to be labeled. It would just give someone the wrong idea anyway.
I will say that probably “Oneness” is the most accurate term you used there, but I want to emphasize that I’ve had absolutely no contact with any “Oneness” church. I was not raised as “Oneness” and I have no background of “Oneness” churches or literature – rather, I came across my beliefs honestly through scriptural study.
Later, I started comparing what I read against the Unitarian position (I had never really heard of that before) and I will honestly say that after an intense study and analysis of the two, I never understood or appreciated how strong and overwhelming the “Jesus is the One God” message is throughout the Bible. But once it clicks, it keeps clicking, and I’m still finding more.
However, I don’t want to be associated with the “Oneness” movement. I don’t really know exactly what they’re saying, and from what I seem to gather, they don’t seem to have very good support.
For example, Sean asked me to talk with J. Dan Gill concerning his audio file, “From Oneness to One.” But it seemed the main thrust of his 48-minute audio was that he was converted away from “Oneness” because of the words “this man Jesus” and “hath raised up” in Acts 2.
This amazed me, because to the Jewish people, that exact speech named the man they crucified, Jesus Christ, as the LORD their God, in the language and the measure of their Old Testament scriptures. I’ve written J. Dan Gill, but so far received no reply.
I suspect that the reason his Oneness church never preached on those verses, was because they couldn’t answer why David had not ascended to heaven. I’m no expert, but it seems to me that the Oneness Pentecostal churches may not be on board with the doctrine of “the dead sleep until the resurrection.”
You asked concerning my stance on the King James Version. I do believe that our Authorized Version is:
1) the word of God
2) was faithfully preserved until present day
3) is perfectly translated
4) and without error, to the jot and tittle and
5) even the specific English words were guided by the hand of God.
Now, I am not saying this because this makes me popular. But I’ve been testing this for about 10 years now, and it’s been bulletproof. I wouldn’t want to enter a debate against an “eternal conscious torment peddler” without the KJV and I would be unable to defend bible integrity against the skeptic/Islamic charges of “bible error” if I were forced to defend any other version.
There is a lot of slander/misinformation against the AV inerrancy position. Ten years ago, I thought it sounded like a stupid joke. It’s no joke – try not to be prejudiced just because it’s adopted by certain characters with a less than Christian disposition, peddling hell fire and insisting that it “defends their fundamental doctrines.”
I do have one thing with which to conclude:
I think that you (many of you on this forum) have been so jaded by “the Trinity” that when you hear “Jesus is God” in your mind you translate this to “Jesus is the second of three persons.” This is unfortunate, because it means that defensive arguments will be raised by reflex, and it really limits communication. I’m glad we’re past the “Trinity presumption” phase now.
And by all means, we should be passionate, but this does not preclude being fair, chivalrous, and of sound mind. This is an important subject.
Thanks for listening,
-Andrew
Andrew,
RE: the Messianic [and not Yahwist] title of “Son of God” let me quote Professor Colin Brown, general editor of the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology:
I’ll answer your Pro 30.4 “riddle” [which isn't a riddle at all] with one of the standard trinitarian commentaries around, ESV Study Bible:
How about the non-denominational, standard New Bible Commentary on Proverbs 30.1-33 Sayings of Agur:
Where is the “preexistent God the Son” here?
Note that just because the Bible applies YHWH texts to Jesus, does not mean their One and the same YHWH. Same goes with titles [i.e. Saviour, Lord etc.] since both angels and humans are called “gods” [Moses, Ex 4.16; 7.1]. Something Jesus himself addresses as part of his refutation to him being the God of Israel [John 10.30f.].
Should we assume pagan kings like Nebuchadrezzar and Artaxerxes are part of the Godhead because their called “King of kings” [Dan 2.37; Ezek 26.7; Ezra 7.12]? Of course not, since this particular title was used by kings of Persia and expresses their sovereignty over many subject peoples. In the same way, Jesus has been made Lord of all [King of all earth kings], “to the glory of God the Father” [Phil 2.11].
Dear Xavier,
It doesn’t matter to me what Colin Brown thinks. Mr. Brown is wrong, he hasn’t proven his statements, he’s not replying to my scriptures, and he’s also not available to answer for what he’s said.
But if quoting Professors with Doctorates of Theology behind their names mattered, we would be required to yield to majority rule, i.e. Trinity, Eternal Conscious Torment, Papal Supremacy, etc. I’m a solas scriptures kind of guy.
Likewise, your ESV study bible, in all its wisdom, claims that Proverbs 30 is simply NOT ANSWERABLE at all. Yet the Psalms says this is a prophecy.
Pro 30:1
(1) The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal,
I already pointed out why neither Trinity nor Unitarian doctrines could answer this prophecy: a claim that “there is no name that fits” is not an answer. It’s no surprise that the ESV cannot answer.
Regardless, the ESV was a red herring. You didn’t answer, but you countered with “where is the pre-existent Son of God here?” I didn’t offer this prophecy was not offered as a “pre-existence” stand-alone proof.
I was reviewing this before posting and noticed that by asking “where is the pre-existent Son of God here” that you just lapsed back into attacking the Trinity. This isn’t about “Trinity.” The “Son of God” has no practical application as a name or title until the fulfillment of Isaiah 9:6. God doesn’t reveal all his names at one time:
Exo 6:3
(3) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
Likewise, the “Son of God” wouldn’t make any sense until the new Testament. Although the name “Jesus” was declared as the name of God in Exodus (Exo 23:21) I doubt anyone would have made the connection until after the fact (see Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Trypho.”) The “Sun of Righteousness” isn’t really fulfilled until Rev 21:23 & 22:5.
So, I object to your term “the pre-existent Son of God” – it would be more accurate to say that the Son of God existed as God before he was called the Son of God.
Didn’t Servetus likewise object to the “eternal Son of God” and instead affirmed “the Son of the eternal God?” Likewise, the gospel of John does not call Jesus “the Son of God” until after he has entered the world as a Son – it simply calls him the Word, God, and the Light. “Son of God” does not occur until John 1:34.
I hope you understand why I’m making this distinction.
I’ll quickly touch on some things you through out in your last couple paragraphs:
Exo 4:16 “…and thou shalt be to him instead of God.”
I don’t see Aaron being called LORD, Jehovah, or Yahweh there.
Exo 7:1
(1) And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Note the term “a god” is used, not “God” and certainly not LORD, Jehovah, or Yahweh. This verse uses a literary device know as “analogy” – as the Egyptian gods are silent and are spoken for by their human prophets, so shall Moses remain silent and be spoken for by his brother Aaron.
I cannot imagine that any rational person would get confused with this passage and think that Moses was actually being named as God.
Now, I need your attention: you claimed that Jesus refuted that he was the God of Israel in John 10:30… Jesus no where refuted any such claim.
What he did do is ask them a question, to confound them, which they weren’t able to answer. Read the verse he was quoting from to find the full effect of what he said to them…
Psa 82:7
(7) But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Those were the next words that he stopped short of saying. The section he quoted was a rebuke against the unjust rulers, i.e. the Pharisees.
KING OF KINGS, and LORD OF LORDS
Artaxerxes called himself a king of kings, in a letter to Ezra. So what if the heathen king Artaxerxes calls himself a king of kings? This is a very poor argument, and a recycled one at that.
You might try to make a better case with Nebuchadnezzar, where “king of kings” is used as an honorific by his subject Daniel. However, remember that Nebuchadnezzar was a literal king over other kings, and the Babylonian honorific goes no further.
Can you show me any place where Nebuchadnezzar is called “Lord of Lords” or “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” in combination? That “Lord of Lords” makes all the difference.
Deu 10:17
(17) For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
Psa 136:2-3
O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever. O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.
The New Testament uses a slightly different phrase, namely KING OF KINGS, and LORD OF LORDS, and it uses this in combination with other titles of divinity like “the first and the last” and “the Almighty” and in combination with displays of divine awesome supernatural power. It is not a shared title.
There is no comparison or possibility for rational confusion between the Babylonian honorific of “a king of kings.”
The “King of Kings, and Lord of Lords” identifies he who only hath immortality (1 Titus 6:15) who dwells where no man can approach, and is he whom no man hath seen.
1Ti 6:14-16
(14) That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
(15) Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
(16) Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
This same specific title and address is also called the Word of God, Faithful and True, and the Lamb in Revelation 17:14 and Revelation 19:4. This LORD OF LORDS leads the host of heaven…. and they follow his command, to cast down all other “gods” from this earth.
For is he not a God of gods, and a Lord of Lords?
He shall cast out the false gods,
Joh 16:11
(11) Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
And he shall be their God, and shall dwell with men, something that the distant Greek philosophical god would never do…
Rev 21:3
(3) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
And Alpha and Omega, (whom this same book identifies as Christ) shall be that God.
Rev 21:6-7
(6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
(7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
To summarize:
1) Claiming that Artaxerxes is called “king of kings” by the bible is a bogus argument.
2) It is just a bogus argument claiming that Moses is called “God” by twisting an obvious metaphor and claiming that it is literal.
3) Jesus did not deny that calling himself the “Son of God” was indeed making himself God. Read carefully – his question remained unanswered.
4) In the gospels, Jesus had a tendency to ask questions without making direct statements. If you want direct statements, that’s why we have the book of Revelation, which reveals Jesus Christ.
Take care,
-Andrew
Andrew,
WOW! You are certainly a bird of a different feather! Thanks for going ahead and being open & honest about your beliefs. I’ve never run across a Oneness believer who was KJV only while at the same time believed in Conditional Immortality. Interesting!
Now I have run across a few Oneness folk before. In fact we had a guy here on the kingdomready blog before – going at it with a few of us. But he seemed to have anger issues or something. He was always very condescending and rude to everyone. So it would be nice to have someone willing to be more patient, courteous, and open to honest dialog even through points of disagreement (which I’m sure there will be a lot).
Up front I’ll say that I have always thought the Oneness position was the weakest (Biblically speaking) of the 5 main Christological positions. (E.G. my rankings would be 1. Unitarian (obviously), 2. Arian, 3. Binitarian, 4. Trinitarian, 5. Oneness.) Perhaps you can change that perspective somewhat. BTW, I’m also very “Sola Scriptura”. Though I also think two other things are critical to that – a proper understanding of history and to always utilize our own God-given common sense & reason.
You’re right about many of us here instantly assuming “Trinitarian” whenever someone says that they believe Jesus is God in the flesh. We often don’t stop to check that “Jesus is God” card to see if they subscribe to the Trinitarian view, Binitarian view, or Oneness view. I’m usually good about starting to get a sense of that by reading a persons’ posts and seeing a tell here or there that might indicate they are not supporting the Trinity but something a little different. Though I didn’t grasp it with you until you dropped the “rest assured I’m not here to defend the Trinity” line.
So I’m dying to ask you a ton of questions. But going through super-long posts with tons of differing points gets REAL tiring and just beats me down to no end (not to mention it is very boring for others to read). So let’s just handle an issue at a time and see how that goes. OK?
My question today is – If Jesus while on earth was God, was his body just a shell that God dwelt inside, or was he a real human man that God took over or shared consciousness with – like a possession, but in a good way (of course)?
Thanks!
Ron S.
Andrew,
(1) I am simply making the point that scripture does not have a problem calling either Artaxerxes or Nebuchadnezzar “King of kings”, even though the God of Israel is also given that “honorific title”.
Would you concede that the Davidic king is called “god” [elohim] in Ps 45.6? If so, by your reasoning he must be YHWH as well, no?
(2) How am I “twisting the metaphor” of Ex 4.16; 7.1 when we’re not even dealing with metaphors? Check your Hebrew lexicon and then get back to me: môsheh hâyâh ‘ĕlôhîym
(3) Although you do not pay any credence to bibilical scholars or just your run of the mill lexicon/dictionary, by definition “Son of God” means you are not “God”. Think about it, its really easy!
(4) Here’s a couple of direct statements for you:
Dear Xavier [short response mode],
Dan 2:47
(47) The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.
1) “God of gods, and King of Kings” [OT] is no mere honorific.
“King of Kings, and Lord of Lords” [NT] is no mere honorific.
Psalms is inspired, and was a prophecy fulfilled in Christ.
Psa 45:6-7
(6) Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
(7) Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
There’s a lot of those prophecies in the Bible… like the “Potter’s Field” in Zechariah, Genesis 3:15, Psalm 22, and Psalm 24. They’re called Messianic prophecies.
2) Of course we’re dealing with metaphors in Exodus. They teach this stuff in 8th grade English in the States…
Exo 7:1
(1) And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
That’s pretty funny and ironic, really. Try to use some imagination, and you might even smile. The Egyptians were “told” what their gods said by prophets, but their gods never spoke for themselves. Moses should never have objected that he couldn’t speak: God could have given him the ability.
3) I’m thinking about … nope. Sorry. I’m a programmer. A child process IS the same as the parent process… Same nature, same code, same byte for byte, just launched into new environment. The parent process and the child process even “pray” to each other…
4) Read your own quotes in John 10:33-36, calling oneself “The Son of God” was defined as blasphemy… because the Jews refused to recognize the signs, the miracles, the prophecies, and the words. And most importantly, they did not know God, or else they would have recognized him.
-Andrew
Dear Ron S,
Feel free to ask any questions – (1 Peter 3:15) – if you can keep the questions focused without expanding too fast, that will help me to keep responses focused as well.
You wrote:
I’ll start with a question: do you consider our bodies as shells that we dwell inside? After all, we are more than just our bodies, otherwise we wouldn’t be “us’ anymore when we are given incorruptible bodies. “As a man thinks, therefore he is.” If your fleshly body was replaced with titanium and silicone a.k.a. “Ghost in the Shell” would you still be you? Are you still a “real man?”
Before I answer, please consider this scenario: a man wakes up one day in a strange bed, and his arms and legs are paralyzed. He does not remember anything: he has amnesia. He is surrounded by strangers, so he must start from ground zero. Thus, he has to learn to move his hands, to walk, and learn new faces.
But, he has something to help him: he has a diary, and some letters, written to him from … himself. It seems that he knew he would be overcome with Amnesia, and so he grows in wisdom, and is granted access to information he wouldn’t have had access to before – but he has to check his journal, to see what his former self had to say.
Now, if this man that wrote the journal was named John Doe, is this man, who has amnesia, really John Doe? As he recovers various memories, is he still John Doe? When he finally recovers both his physical health and his complete memory, and returns to reclaim his birthright, is he not the True and Only John Doe? (maybe I should have picked a less common name?)
In an attempt to answer your question directly, Jesus was very much flesh and blood – but that does not preclude his preexistence. He did not “possess” or “share consciousness” with a mortal host person. He experienced things as we do. I will cite the amnesia scenario as similar to growing through childhood, and Christ’s ascension (our wave sheaf offering) as restoration to glory.
Who did Christ pray to? To God in heaven, just like any other mortal would have to access their God. How is this possible? God can be in two places at the same time. If we see a tunnel, we can go left, or right. God can go left and right.
To a hamster, a man can exist both inside and outside the cage at the same time, but the hamster might have trouble thinking of the hand and the face as being the same being. After all, they look different: and doth not the scripture say, “Man has a big nose?” Does the hand have a nose? Of course not! The Hand is not Man!
So, recapping:
I think the “dwelt within a shell” model is closest, but this is no different than you or I. Man does have a spiritual component, a free will and a nature that cannot be measured physically. Thus, we come into being at conception, body and soul, and the Christ was begotten of God, and born of Mary, the soul (true self) of God arriving in human flesh, starting at conception.
I hope that answered your question, which seemed mainly to be about perspective, a “how could this work” type of query.
Thanks,
-Andrew
Andrew,
To be honest I didn’t understand your responses. It seems your flippantly prancing around all my arguments and questions. But that’s ok, since we’re keeping you busy I’ll just debate you on the other post.
I understood Andrew’s response. It makes perfect sense. The only problem is that the Bible says nothing like this scenario. Jesus is not just an appendage of God, like the hand in the hamster cage. He is described as the offspring of God. Does the hand in the hamster cage have a separate consciousness and will from the man outside it? Does the hand love, worship, and talk to the man outside the cage? Could the hand in the hamster cage die while the man outside it remained alive? It just doesn’t work.
Mark C.
You got me…am just sloooowwww.
Seriously though, no wonder I couldn’t get half of what he wrote since “the only problem is that the Bible says nothing like [his] scenario”.
Xavier,
Yeah, it actually sounds more like some eastern religions than anything in the Bible. It never ceases to amaze me how people can complicate such a simple concept. Parent and child is the simplest and most basic relationship any person has, and the only one common to all mankind (even though everyone doesn’t have children, everyone had parents). The Bible says that God is the Father of Jesus Christ. Why is this so difficult?
Andrew, is a man wrong if he believes Jesus is the Son of God that was with God from everlasting, rather than God?
Mark C.
Guess Ray didn’t answer your question either?
To Ray, and to Mark C,
To Ray,
Yes, I would say that is wrong, because there are places where the Old Testament prophets named the Messiah as the LORD, as the mighty God, as the Father, and also because Jesus calls himself by the names and unique identifications of God in Revelation, and plainly says that he shall be our God.
To Mark C.,
I don’t like to put forth analogies in front of a forum, because what makes sense to one person may seem like nonsense to another. Analogies are seldom perfect, but may be good for demonstrating the point in question.
For example, the “hand and the hamster” illustrates how someone can be in more than one place at a time, yet me mistaken by a smaller being, but was not supposed to explain the virgin birth of Christ.
However, in the case of the Passion of the Christ, this example is perfect.
Mark C. asked:
1) Yes, the hand does have its own consciousness. If a hamster bites it, it will yank back on its own, without direction from your own brain! It’s called “reflex” and it saves us from getting our hands burned when we do stupid things.
2) Christ did not have a separate will from God, regardless of the arguments of Unitarian hamsters. Analogy holds.
3) Yes, it does. The hand loves the face enough to shield it from a fall, or an army of rabid hamsters, and it even helps wash the face, and to clear its eyes. That’s worship. It adores the face.
4) Yes, the hand does talk to the face. There are things called “nerve signals” that make this possible. The analogy is still doing well…
Yes. If the hamsters were to “cut off the hand” in the middle of the week (see Daniel) the entire body would take that severed hand, and reattach it by means of a surgeon. Then, for the hamsters that were unrepentant and loved not the Owner, that hand will return in power and glory and slay every one of those evil blaspheming hamsters!
[Reattaching severed limbs is a well-known medical practice!]
Please think carefully before dismissing an analogy too quickly.
Mark wrote:
Isaiah 9:6 says that this Messiah shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.
While the meaning of the word “Father” may have a meaning greater than its literal sense (God is our Father, but not in the literal sense) the actual name and title of Father can have no other use than identification. That child is called the Mighty God and the everlasting Father.
So, to use your own words, why is that so difficult?
When the Psalmist speaks of he who receives his blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation, and then names this King of Glory as none other than the LORD of hosts, why is this so difficult?
When John says that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and that this Word dwelt among us in the flesh, and we knew him not, why is this so difficult?
When Jesus calls himself the “first and the last” which, in the language of the Old Testament, means “I am the LORD your God, and besides me there is no other God” … why is that so difficult?
Due to the nature of a blog format, and people swishing in and out, and new people asking what’s been discussed by others, I’m resigned that I’m probably going to wind up repeating quite a lot of various scriptures. But this means I may not get to go in depth as I would prefer.
By the way: you said the Bible says nothing like Jesus being an appendage of God. I beg to differ. Search the scriptures, and you’ll find that he is called
1) “the arm of the LORD”
2) he is also referred to in a few instances in relation to the “right hand of God” or at the “right hand of power”
3) and this is also fitting for the name, Logos, as in the explanation, the doing of a thing.
So, for the record, Isaiah (God, actually) called Jesus the “arm of the LORD” long before I ever came up with my analogy of reaching one’s arm into the hamster cage.
Joh 12:38
(38) That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
I don’t think it’s rational to take only one or two symbolic names, claim those must be strictly literal, and exclude consideration of all others. If “son” must mean in the biological sense, then “arm” must also be rendered biologically.
I’m suggesting that perhaps all sides should be considered, all the names, all the scriptures, and all the implications.
Take care,
-Andrew
“Isaiah 9:6 says that this Messiah shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.”
No It doesnt
If you read Isaiah Fully You would find this is not speaking of Jesus.
its just tradition has taught you to believe that it does.
Maybe you need to read a version translated from the Hebrew it was written in to understand what being spoke of.
Andrew, are you saying that a man is wrong for believing Jesus is the Son of God, rather than God?
Robert, it seems to me that Isaiah 9:6 is speaking about Jesus.
I say this because of Isaiah 9:5 which says:
5 For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire.
In The Pilgrim’s Progress, when Christian met the Interpreter, he was shown many things, one of which was a wall where a fire was burning against it. There was an individual who was throwing water on the fire in order to extinguish it, but the fire kept on growing hotter and higher. The reason for that, as Christian was shown, was that there was another individual on the other side of the wall, who was secretly pouring oil upon the fire.
This is a mystery, but the Interpreter showed Christian that it is about Jesus and the Oil of His Grace, and that because of it,
God’s people remain full of grace even in spite of what the Devil does.
The wall reminds me of our sins which have imprisoned us, putting us on the side where the Devil is, and how Jesus is at work to burn down that which has been the separation of us and him. This is not always easily seen to those in temptation as this work is continued in the soul.
Isaiah 9:6 is one of the most abused texts ever.
1) In its original context it refers to someone else just as Ray said.
2) It says that “his name will be called… mighty god.” It does not say “he IS mighty god.” Just because someone has something like “mighty god” in their name does not mean that that person is “mighty god.” It only means that their name is contains the phrase “mighty god.” This person’s name is glorifying God by saying that He is mighty.
How many are “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” [Eph 1.3]?
Jesus, time and time again, tells us this Father is “the only One God” [mono-theos]:
Is this what everyone one thought?
I remember watching a program on TV about how the Harley Davidson company was at one time looking for a name for their
new concept motorcycle they called the V Rod. They looked at all kinds of names, searching for one that really described what it was.
They settled on the name V Rod.
When we think of Jesus, what better name could be given him but
all that God is?
Dear Xavier,
Why are you parroting anti-Trinity arguments and posting links to Monotheism documents?
In case you’ve forgotten, I’ve been trying to tell you that there is One True God, whom we call the Father (in heaven) and Jesus (whom we crucified), also called the Rock, the Shepherd, the First and the Last, the Almighty, the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords, the LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, and the King of Glory.
If you have time to post, why not answer some more of the specific questions I’ve asked you, or even the general question about Christ and Free Will on Sean’s Jesus Only thread?
-Andrew
Dear Andrew,
We’re done friend. This is clearly a waste of both of our time. I’m sure you would agree.
adios.
I realize this topic is 6 months old but I see people are commenting of late. I want to chime in on the original question:
When Jesus was asked what the most important commandment is, His reply started with “Hear O’ Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one”
Only after stating that God is one did Jesus say we are to love God and our neighbor.
Back in the first century, followers of Jesus didn’t have to explain they were monotheists….it was a given. Unfortunately today, we (the Unitarians) are in the minority and are almost forced to explain what we mean when we say God (especially to most Christians)….because we are not talking about the same triune God as they are.
Talking about abortion is divisive, and to some the definition of marriage, but we have to be strong and courageous to speak up on these things. I read where Jesus came to bring a sword (Matt 10:34). If speaking the truth is divisive, then so be it. (always with love…and hopefully tact)
And yes, we should be zealous to share with others… I admit this isn’t easy, and the approach is not a one size fits all.
Personally, my speaking out about God being ‘echad’ (in the true sense of the word) has recently caused my being asked not to return to a congregation. This of course is nothing compared to what Michael Servatus went through.
Eph 4:25
Therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. (RSV)
One more thing…..the articles and audio from Sean (as well as your colleagues) have made a difference in my life especially in my study of the scriptures. Thank you!
I pray that the God of Israel will bless you Sean for being willing to take a stand for truth and for sharing with others the knowledge that He has entrusted you with.
Andrew,
No I don’t think of our bodies as a shell. I think as we’re presently constructed we are the sum total of our physical existence. Look at how a person’s personality can totally change after a severe brain injury. If part of the physical unit is altered, who we are gets altered. That said what God can do with us come resurrection time isn’t a concern of mine. He’s God and if He can make the entire universe, I’m sure He can make me just as I was as a mortal human anew as a immortal human.
Now in reading through your “Amnesia” analogy, I’m not sure I see how this is that patently different than trinitarianism when you get right down to it. I mean if God is still God up in heaven/throughout the universe, but pulls a part of himself to be a quasi-recovering amnesiac in human form, then isn’t kind of like the 2nd person that is God (a-la the Trinity)?
And I’d love for you to explain (if you would) your view of the Scriptural references to Jesus sitting down at the right side of the Father in heaven – post ascension. How are there two up there and yet they’re both the exact same God? Is God still operating the human “avatar” of himself in order to fill the role of both God on the throne the the lamb who comes and takes the book from the hand of the one on the throne (Rev 5)? And do you see this same arrangement in operation before the Incarnation (perhaps the process of becoming a human zygote is where the amnesia part comes into play)?
Thanks Andrew,
Ron S.
Dear Ron S.,
We were just discussing “the right hand of God” on the parallel thread running on Sean’s “Jesus Only” blog article: I think it started at post number 56, and it comes up several times until post 73.
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/08/12/response-to-jesus-only-critique/
In short, you can pull up other instances of “right hand” to demonstrate that it is also a metaphor for might, strength, and power. Here’s a similar phrase, but note that in this one, it does not say “the right hand of God” but “the right hand of power”
Mar 14:62
(62) And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
The Greek word there for “power” was translated as “Mighty One” in Xavier’s bible version, but out of the 120 times this dunamis is used in the New Testament, there aren’t any examples where it’s used for a person: only for impersonal force, violence, ability, etc…
Therefore, considering the nine instances where the phrase where it refers to Jesus at the “right hand of God” – either it’s talking about the literal right hand, or the literal right side, or it’s using a metaphor for wielding the full power of God.
I think it’s obviously talking about wielding the full power of God, and I think that Mark 14:62 proves the existence and application of the metaphor.
What these examples do not do is demonstrate the presence of a “second individual person” – though I grant that it would be easy enough to read into that, if that’s what you were looking for.
I think that a vision of Christ in overwhelming glory could be well be described as “seated at the right hand of God” – when their previous experience with Jesus seemed so “normal” by comparison, this would be an important distinction to make.
Ron S. wrote:
Who knows what the Trinity doctrine is anyway? When someone asks me if I believe in “the Trinity” I have to ask them to please “define Trinity” for me, so I know what they mean by it, first.
As far as what I call rabid hyper-Trinitarianism where they speak of hypostasis beings, that just gets weird so fast, it’s acknowledged that no one can understand it: and the whole point is that you’d better recite the creed or you’re a heretic, anyway.
For some people, what they mean by Trinity is simply that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all aspects of the One God, perhaps as we perceive God in different roles. The strict hyper-Trinitarians would have a fit over this, and call this the Modalism heresy (or some other label, I’m sure.)
Now, I’m not even sure the Amnesia model is a really good model. I’m not stuck on it. But even if one of the Trinity theologies were to share that, that wouldn’t necessarily mean it was a bad model. But trying to explain how the power of God works is a tricky business.
Six months ago, I used an analogy with an orbiting Gundam that launched a “Gundam Fist” to plummet to earth, posessing the same AI programming as the Greater Gundam, but without all the special weapons and full circuitry etc. That model example worked pretty well at the time (and if the Japanese Gundam genre isn’t familar enough to recognize, don’t worry about it.)
The whole point of the model and analogy is just for a framework to launch into scriptural proofs, anyways.
Ron S. wrote:
First, I consider that the book of Revelation is overflowing with symbolic pictures. For example, in Revelation 5:6 the Lamb has seven horns and seven eyes, so we should be careful not to go too wild to interpret a description beyond how its intended.
Second, I think that it’s a lot clearer if you remember that the word “and” does not necessarily denote separate things. For example, the typical Unitarian might argue that Revelation 22:1 proves that God and the Lamb are two separate people, because of the word “and.”
Rev 22:1
(1) And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
But that same Unitarian doesn’t notice that his same strict interpretation also means that the Father is not God! Notice the same grammatical structure here in chapter 1, verse 6.
Rev 1:6
(6) And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
What I am trying to demonstrate, is that it may take a conscious effort to fairly test a “One God named Jesus” perspective. So, just as when you see “God and his Father” you understand that this is still One God, being emphasized in different ways, when you see “God and the Lamb” this also means One God, just emphasized in different ways.
Also, throughout the Bible, the parallel equivalence structure is very common. The scriptures frequently say one thing, and then it repeats it in the next stanza with a different phrase.
Isa 41:14
(14) Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.
Is that one person or two?
I think that’s One God.
Isa 44:6
(6) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Again, is that one person, or two? I think that’s One God, and two different names. Yet Jesus claims this unique identification of the “first and the last” in Revelation. Again, One God, different names, many different titles.
With this perspective, note that the whole “Oneness” perspective starts to snap into place…
Rev 21:23
(23) And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
Rev 22:5
(5) And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
Notice, that it does not say that God does one thing, and the Lamb does something different. There’s a lot of equivalence proofs in Revelation, including “Who sits on the Throne” and especially concerning the names of God, which can only be intended for identification.
Ron S. wrote:
I don’t see two up there at all. I just see a lot of emphasis on names like Lamb, the Word of God, Righteous and True, first and the last, beginning and the end, Alpha and Omega, Lord God Almighty, etc.
Sometimes one name is used at a time, sometimes two names (or aspects) are used in parallel. But note in Revelation 21:7, that Alpha and Omega says that “I shall be his God, and he shall be my son” – and it is not used in the plural. And when Alpha and Omega spoke in chapter 1, he identified himself as:
Rev 1:18
(18) I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Ron S. wrote:
If you’re still thinking of the “amnesia” theory, there’s no more “amnesia” after those three days and three nights, when he ascends to my God, and to your God, and receives all authority in heaven and earth.
Concerning before the virgin birth, every other appearance of God on Earth could be explained by simply “materializing” like you would by logging into a video game, still existing in heaven, but directly interacting on earth. It’s a very simple explanation for walking in the Garden of Eden, receiving tithes as Melchizedek, eating with Abraham, wrestling with Jacob, writing on the stone tablets with his finger for Moses, bearing a sword when he went to meet Joshua, etc…
The reason I used the “amnesia” analogy is because I have trouble picturing an infant with a 3 billion I.Q. I imagine that the child had to learn to walk, and to speak, just like all of us had to go through (except for Adam and Eve, who had it easy.) It also matches scripture with how it says Jesus “filled with wisdom.”
Luk 2:40
(40) And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
I think Isaiah 41:14 refers to one God and that it also applies to Jesus, as some of the things David wrote in the Psalms applied to him as one man, and also to Jesus.
God seems to be saying to Israel that he will help them as he is their redeemer and their Holy One. It also may be telling us that
God has a holy one and a redeemer with him that is also their
help.
“The reason I used the “amnesia” analogy is because I have trouble picturing an infant with a 3 billion I.Q. I imagine that the child had to learn to walk, and to speak, just like all of us had to go through (except for Adam and Eve, who had it easy.) It also matches scripture with how it says Jesus “filled with wisdom.” ”
Luk 2:40
(40) And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him
If you read a little farther you will find he wasnt full yet
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, [7] and in favour with God and man.
If Jesus was God why would he have to increase in favour with God.
was God at odds with himself?
or had he forgot that Jesus was God.
I see Ron adressed some of the same things i did in other thread and you really never answered him so i guess you will also sidestep mine too
Isn’t God’s throne the righteousness, judgment, equity, mercy, goodness, severity, and all that we see of God in the scriptures?
Isn’t his word his throne, and isn’t Jesus his word?
Doesn’t God sit in Jesus and Jesus in God? Isn’t it all one?
Isn’t God established in Jesus and Jesus in God?
Dear Robert,
I actually didn’t mean to stop my post where I did. I “sent” without meaning too: normally I sign with a good bye and my name (which you will notice is missing there.)
I’m glad to see that you don’t have a sticking point on the word “wisdom” – but you asked a question about “favour with God”
Robert asked:
Luk 2:52
(52) And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
Jesus matured mentally, physically, and developed in a pleasing way to God and man. Or, “he got smarter, stronger, and don’t you wish everyone’s kid was like him?”
Robert said:
Robert, I’ve got about five different people posting from all different angles split among two pages. But I am answering everyone. If you think I’ve left a question of yours unanswered, then maybe you missed it: check again, and ask yourself if your question hasn’t been answered already.
However, I’ve posted a lot of questions to the Unitarian posters on this board, and it seems that the great majority of them are ignored, even when they are labeled “Question” and addressed to a specific person.
Maybe you could turn some of that zealousness around and direct it towards the folks that aren’t answering their questions? Or at the least, if you’re going to imply that I’m ignoring a specific question of yours, remind me what that question is, please.
In the meantime, I have read the posting policies of this board, and I am trying to be careful not to violate the written policies concerning limits of how many posts one person is allowed at a time.
So, if I somehow missed one question out of several dozen, but I at least don’t get banned for rule violations, I at least have the possibility of fielding it in a second pass.
-Andrew
Andrew
So many people here have answered over and over again most of your questions using logic and pure scriptures. they met your questions head on.
you on other hand have sidestepped every question and issue presented to you.
The people here know their stuff on this subject and are not even phased by your attempts to try to confuse and deceive.
only reason to even reply to you is people come here for the truth and to see your post without someone setting you str8 might be deadly to them in a spiritual sense.
If it wasnt for that then you would just probably get ignored.
robert,
I think you may need to review basic biology. Reflex is not a separate consciousness in the hand, nor is it independent of the brain. Unconscious and involuntary actions are still controlled by the brain.
Then how could Jesus have said, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will”?
Again, basic biology. The hand does not shield the face out of love, it is self preservation. One part of the body working with another, all controlled by the same brain.
Nerve signals are a function within the body, not communication between two different entities. The analogy failed from the start, IMO.
There is a limited amount of time in which a severed hand can be reattached, after that it dies. If it is reattached within that period of time, then it didn’t die. Therefore, if Jesus is analogous to the hand of the owner, then he wasn’t really dead. Which, I might add, is exactly how many Trinitarians handle the argument that God cannot die but Jesus died therefore he cannot be God.
In any case, the biggest problem with the hand in the hamster cage analogy is simply that it does not portray a Father/Son relationship, which is what the Bible clearly presents as the relationship between God and Jesus.
First of all, it doesn’t say he would be God, it says that this would be the meaning of his name. The name Israel contains El, another name for God, and literally means “God prevails.” The name Isaiah includes the divine name Jah and means “Jah has saved.” There are many Hebrew names that have God as part of them. This does not make these people God.
Secondly, the name “God” applied to the coming Messiah is not meant to imply that he would be God the creator. The phrase “mighty God” combines El with gibbor which means strong or mighty. Like the name Elohim, this phrase can be used of mighty rulers other than God Himself. It refers to human rulers in Ezekiel 32:21, and is translated “The strong among the mighty” in the KJV, “The strong among the mighty ones” in the NASB, and “mighty chiefs” in the NRSV. The Messiah would be a mighty ruler because of God’s power, and “the government shall be upon his shoulder.”
As for calling him “everlasting father,” the word for “everlasting” is a variation of the word for “age.” The phrase literally means “father of the coming age.” It must be remembered that not even in Trinitarian theology is the Messiah ever referred to as “Father.” If anything, he is called “God the Son.” Even the Roman Catholic Douay version translates this phrase as “the Father of the world to come.” To call someone the father of something is a common Hebraic idiom referring to one who started it. Jabal is called “the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle” in Genesis 4:20, and Jubal is called “the father of all such as handle the harp and organ” in the following verse. Abraham is called “the father of all them that believe” in Romans 4:11. The coming Messiah was called the Father of the Coming Age because he would be the one who initiates or inaugurates it.
The Psalm to which you refer is not talking about the Messiah receiving blessing from the Lord. It is talking about those that are righteous and seek God.
Psalm 24:
3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?
4 He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.
5 He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.
6 This is the generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face, O Jacob. Selah.
After that, it goes on to talk about lifting your head to the King of Glory, and then says who this King of Glory is.
It’s not difficult at all. It says “the Word” not “the Son”. The Word was never presented as a pre-existent person, but the mind and plan of God, which became flesh in the person God’s Son. It was understood this way for hundreds of years, and even after the doctrine of the Trinity was developed, verse 3 of John 1 still read, “All things were made by it; and without it was not any thing made that was made” in all English Bibles before the KJV in 1611.
It’s only difficult if you use wrong definitions. “The First and the Last” is another way of saying “the one and only” but it is not limited to God the Creator. Like many other names and titles, the fact that God and Jesus are both called the same thing doesn’t prove they are identical, only that they have many of the same attributes and characteristics, which is to be expected since Jesus is His Son.
The “Arm of the LORD” refers to God’s power and might. It is only used three times in the Bible. Isaiah 51:9 is simply talking about God’s might and makes no reference to Messiah. The other two occurrences do mention Messiah, but they do not call him the arm of the Lord.
Isaiah 52:13 — 53:2
13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.
1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
John 12:38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
It speaks of the arm of the Lord being revealed, but doesn’t call Messiah the arm of the Lord.
Also, the Bible says that Jesus is seated at the right hand of God, or the right hand of power, but there is no Scripture that calls him the right hand of God.
And as for calling him the logos, I mentioned that it refers to God’s mind and plan, and was made flesh in the person of Jesus.
That’s correct. And there are indeed many shades of meaning to the word “son” but they all have the same general sense. But it can never mean the same person as he whose son it is. And as I pointed out, Jesus is NOT called “the arm of the LORD.”
Dear Mark C.,
I’m looking at your “biology” analysis/critique:
1) The analogy still works for many aspects
2) You’re not understanding the point of an analogy.
Mark C. wrote,
Since you want to talk biology, Reflex is not controlled by the brain, it is controlled by the spine. If it were controlled by the brain, our reactions would be too slow, and we’d get severely injured. By the time the brain realizes we’re getting cut or burnt, the hand has already moved away of its own accord.
If you want to continue to pick apart analogies, why not make fun of the parable where a man is marrying ten virgins at the same time, or the metaphor where it says that our God is a rock? Does a Rock even have a nervous system?
In this case,
the reflex of a hand is to the consciousness of a man,
as the consciousness level of a man is compared to all of God.
Isa 40:22
(22) It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
The same way I’d say this type of thing to myself, when there’s something that I dread, yet that I know I have to do. I try to reason if there’s any other way to do this thing, even if I know better.
Mark C wrote:
Actually, Mark, That’s how Paul spoke to the Ephesians.
Eph 5:28-29
(28) So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
(29) For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
So, would you tell Paul that he is wrong, because a man does not “love” his own body, but rather simply practices “self preservation?”
It’s not wrong at all to say that the hand loves the face, even to say that it worships the face. You’re trying way to hard to find a fault with the analogy.
Mark C. wrote:
Semantics, semantics, ye Greeks never tire of these arguments. You argue that if Jesus was God, he couldn’t have been raised from the dead. Have ye not read?
Joh 5:26
(26) For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
Tell me this, Mark, if you are playing a video game like Halo, Quake, Doom, (or even a simpler game like Pac-man) what do you call it when the game rips you to virtual pixels? Do you protest to your opponent that he “didn’t really kill you” because you’re “still alive” outside the Quake universe?
Mark C. wrote:
The biggest problem with your interpretation of the descriptive names of Father and Son, is that it ignores direct statements that equate the two. Like the Hamster metaphor, the Father and Son descriptives only go so far.
What would you say about the Shepherd and the Sheep relationship? In case you’ve forgotten, shepherds raise sheep to be eaten! Some may only be fleeced, but then the shepherds wear the sheep!
Mark C. wrote:
Rev 21:6-7
(6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end … and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
I already know that you have thousands of words already written by others to try to reason why clear names like “the mighty God”‘ and “the everlasting Father” do not mean what they say. Yet, if I employed a fraction of that same sophistry, I could prove that the Father is not God.
Mark C. wrote:
I’m sorry Mark, but that escape holds no water. Observe:
Psa 24:3
(3) Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?
There is only one who has ascended, that is, the Messiah.
Psa 3:4
(4) I cried unto the LORD with my voice, and he heard me out of his holy hill. Selah.
And you can’t argue that “the hill of the LORD” is not “heaven.” What what else it says about the holy hill of the LORD!
Psa 68:16-18
(16) Why leap ye, ye high hills? this is the hill which God desireth to dwell in; yea, the LORD will dwell in it for ever.
(17) The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place.
(18) Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them.
So, please, I waited until Xavier confirmed that no man hath ascended to heaven, save Jesus. Psalm 68 here says that God dwells in that hill, and says that God has ascended on high
Eph 4:8-9
(8) Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
(9) (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
Paul seems to think that Psalm 68 applies to Christ, that is, him that ascended, yet Psalms 68 identifies the “thou” as “O God” in verses 8 and 9.
Psa 68:9-10, 18
(9) Thou, O God, didst send a plentiful rain, whereby thou didst confirm thine inheritance, when it was weary.
(10) Thy congregation hath dwelt therein: thou, O God, hast prepared of thy goodness for the poor.
18) Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them.
A major gap in your explaining away of Psalm 24, is why would the Psalm break in the middle, and start talking about God entering into heaven? When did he leave, according to your theory?
Besides, Paul seems to see no problem with taking He who is called “God” in another Psalm, who is said to dwell in his holy hill, and leads captivity captive, and assigning this to the risen Christ, named Jesus.
Mark C. wrote:
One problem with your explanation, is that John DOES present the WORD as a real person, in the same fashion as he explains GOD as a real person. In fact, he says that the Word Was God. Because only John uses the “the Word” it is to John that we must turn to find what he means by it.
Joh 1:1-3
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
So, according to your theory, a non-person made the world. But, let’s consider the implications of how you started to explain your “not a person” argument:
Mark, if you were in an accident, and if we could somehow take your mind and superimpose it in constructed body of silicon and steel, what would we call that? I think we’d call that “Mark” (or if we were being funny, the “Mark II”)
If a person is not the sum of their mind and thoughts and character, then what are they? Or would you reason that “Mark is 6 feet tall and has a heart, the Mark II is only 5″10″ and has an engine, therefore the Mark II is not me?” … or “therefore I am not Mark?”
Mark C. wrote:
Mark: are you sure about that?
It so happens that I have copies of pretty much all of the English bible translations produced prior to the Authorized Version in 1611.
Wycliffe’s English translation, from the 1300′s, the absolute FIRST full English translation of the scriptures:
John 1:1-3, Wycliffe
1 “In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.”
2 “This was in the bigynnyng at God”
3 “Alle thingis weren maad bi hym, and withouten hym was maad no thing, that thing that was maad.
Sorry Mark, your claim is proved false. Wycliffe’s translation is an English translation made before 1611.
Joh 1:1-3, Rheims New Testament, Bible, 1582
(1) In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.
Either one of those counts as an English translation prior to 1611. Please take extra precautions to be accurate before stating something as absolute. But you should also make sure that your argument is relevant, for example:
“It” vs. “him” matters very little anyway. Here’s an example of “it” where it’s clearly interchangeable with “his.”
Gen 3:15, KJV
(15) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Mark C. wrote:
It’s only difficult if you use wrong definitions. “The First and the Last” is another way of saying “the one and only” but it is not limited to God the Creator.
So, you’re saying that there is not “one and only” of the “one and only?” While you’re at it, why don’t you say there is more than One God, and argue that we’re using a flawed definition for God?
Isa 44:6 KJV
(6) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Rev 1:17-18 KJV
(17) And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
(18) I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Rev 21:6-7 KJV
(6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
(7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
Mark C. wrote
Yet John said that the prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled, that the arm of the LORD was revealed by the coming of the Christ.
Mark C. wrote:
What do you get, it you take a person, but subtract their mind and their thoughts? Mark, even by your own words, the logos, the Word, is God.
We are not a “sum of powers.” God may be invisible, but that does not mean he is no longer God if he makes himself visible! Being invisible is a power, not “who” God is.
Mark C. wrote:
God is a Rock, and Rocks don’t have children at all.
And I’ll remind you, that in our world, we NEVER set a Lamb as Shepherd over the flock. The Shepherd is never one of sheep!
Joh 10:11 KJV
(11) I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Joh 1:29 KJV
(29) The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
1Co 5:7 KJV
(7) Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Pe 5:4 KJV
(4) And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
Mark, by your reasoning, Jesus cannot be both shepherd and a sheep at the same time! But the Bible says he is. Likewise, this same Bible names Jesus as God and our Creator. Just like the Shepherd and the Lamb, He is the same that we’ve called Father and the Son.
Hamsters have trouble realizing that the Hand is the Owner, and the Face is the Owner. Is that not “two Owners?”
The Face is the Owner. The Face is never put in a pocket, the hand is put in a pocket, therefore the Hand is not the Face, and since the Face is Owner, the Hand is not Owner! *sigh* Silly hamsters.
Conclusion:
1) Irrelevant attacks against the hamster analogy
2) Irrelevant argument about translation of John 1:3
3) The “didn’t die” argument defies modern use of term. Christ died in a fashion in as much as this Universe that God created allows. You can’t claim that because he came back he didn’t die.
4) The “King of Glory” is he who ascended to heaven and Paul himself also calls the God of the Old Testament as Christ Jesus, see “led captivity captive”
5) A person is their mind and thoughts, not the sum of their powers
6) irrational turning language inside out to say that there is more than one “first and the last” (also “beginning and the end, Alpha and Omega, LORD, etc”)
7) Just as the Shepherd is the Lamb, and the Good Shepherd is Our Passover, the Father is the Son. You’ve been forming a doctrine out a single analogy, ignoring all other analogies and the rest of bible revelation, and trying way too hard to explain away clear names and statements of identification.
Take care,
-Andrew
As Jesus said, “The Son of man is in heaven.” (see John 3:13)
Now we know Jesus is the Son of man, and that there is a sense in which he is seated in the heavenlies even as he was in the days of his flesh here upon this earth. (see Eph 2:6)
From the perspective of heaven, are not all they which are of Christ
seen as one?
Now as God is the God of the living and not the dead, and is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are they not of Christ seeing as they believed God and were made partakers of his promise?
Are they not part of the Son of man which is in heaven?
Now those who are present with the Lord (being absent from the body, their physical bodies that they once walked in) are they being prepared for the resurrections to take place when he comes
for the rest of his Church?… or is it one resurrection?…the one that includes all of the body of Christ?
‘Till then, they are clothed by him in his glory and grace, being a part of him, as he has redeemed them and brought them unto himself, by his spirit, that part of them that is the new creation in Christ Jesus. That’s it isn’t it?
I’m still not real clear on the resurrection. Have some of those received while others are waiting, or are all waiting for it to take place when Jesus returns to this earth for that day?
So it’s the spine and not the brain. But it’s still not a separate consciousness in the hand which was your original analogy.
Because those are valid analogies from the Bible, but the hamster cage is not.
The reflex of a hand is, as you pointed out, controlled by the spine of the man. It does not have its own consciousness or decision making ability, which is why the hand analogy does not work as an illustration of the relationship between God and Jesus.
In that case, consider why you “have to” do it. Is it because someone else wants you to and you have a duty to obey that person? That was the case with Jesus. It was God’s will and Jesus said several times that he did not do his own will but the will of the Father. That’s two wills.
No, Paul is absolutely right. In fact your analogy of the hand in the hamster cage fits quite well with the work of the Holy Spirit and the Church being members of Christ’s body. But it does NOT fit with your description of Jesus being God.
I don’t have to try very hard at all to see that a hand does not have a separate will or consciousness from the person whose hand it is. Love and worship involve a decision of the will, not automatic reflex action.
It’s not semantics, it’s logic. You’re the one that said a hand could be reattached. I merely pointed out that in such a case it was not really dying. My point about it dying in the first place had to do with the separateness of Jesus from God in contrast to your hand in the cage analogy.
Thank you. This verse proves my point, as do the several other verses that speak of the Father being the God of Jesus Christ. Can God have a God?
I wasn’t trying to reason why clear names don’t mean what they say. I was showing that they mean what they say and not what you claim they say.
It’s not an escape; it’s what the Psalm says. I even quoted it for you. Read it again. All the other verses you quoted are talking about the holy hill, but you neglect what Psalm 24 says about who will enter into it.
It doesn’t. The word heaven is not there.
It can only be understood that way if you start with the assumption that “the Word” is a person. Then when it says “the Word was God,” it must mean another person who is God. But throughout the Old Testament “the Word” is always the mind of God, not a separate person.
God made the world through His Word. Many verses state this. But it is an unwarranted assumption to say that the Word is a pre-existing person.
I didn’t say that a person is not the sum of their mind and thoughts and character. In fact I was saying that’s exactly what a person is. And that’s exactly what God is as well, which is what John meant when he said “the Word was God.”
Sorry, I made a slight misstatement. I should have said all English Bibles translated from the Greek before the KJV have “all things were made by it…” The Reims and the Wycliffe were translated from the Latin Vulgate. The point still stands that eight English versions before the KJV have “all things were made by it…”
In some instances it doesn’t matter. But in John 1, it makes the difference between the Word being a person or not.
As I pointed out, there are many names, titles, and characteristics that both Jesus and God have. If you think that makes him God, then you’re the one saying there are two Gods.
I didn’t say it wasn’t. But you said the Scriptures called Jesus the arm of the Lord, and I pointed out that they do not. The arm, i.e. the power, of God was revealed in and through Christ. But that is not the same as calling Jesus the arm of the Lord.
I didn’t say it wasn’t. I said the Logos is the mind and heart and plan of God, and therefore it is God. God is His Word the same way I am my word and you are your word. It is not a separate person from God. And God’s Word became flesh in the person of His Son Jesus.
I didn’t say it was.
But you can’t mix metaphors like that. The statement “God is a rock” is figurative; He is not a literal stone. But the Scriptures say that He conceived a son in Mary’s womb. So it’s more than figurative to call God the Father of Jesus. But even if that weren’t the case and “My Son” was figurative, it wouldn’t even work as a figure if he was God.
No it doesn’t. They are two different figures. There is no verse of Scripture that combines both ideas. Nobody ever called him the sheep and the shepherd in the same context. But he is called the Son of God and God is called His Father in many places.
He is only called God for certain in two or three verses, and they have been demonstrated to be in a representative sense. We’ve been over this.
I didn’t claim that. I was talking about your statement that the hand being cut off and reattached was analogous to Jesus dying and rising again. In that scenario the hand does not die, therefore it cannot be used as an illustration of Jesus’ death.
I referred to where Psalm 24 interprets itself. It’s talking about “the generation of them that seek him” (v. 6). Paul’s statement was referring to Jesus ascending into heaven. That doesn’t make Him God.
As I pointed out, the Bible does not say the shepherd is the lamb. It doesn’t mix metaphors like that. I am not ignoring other analogies, I am just keeping them separate.
No.
All are waiting for the resurrection. And they are waiting in sheol/hades which is a state of unconsciousness.
Mark C.
It serves well to use what the author of John later says in his first letter as a sort of “interlinear translation” of the prologue to his Gospel. The Translator’s Translation (British and Foreign Bible Society, 1973) does this well I think.
Note that this is John’s own comment on John 1:1 and shows that eternal life “preexisted” as a promise (1 John 2:25). Five times John says “That which” or “what” we have seen:
The Bible teaches a predestined, foreknowledge of not only events but persons as well. In other words, Jesus was foreknown not preexistent, big difference that is brought in the NT scriptures:
It seems that the scriptures are talking about a “message about Jesus Christ [that] has revealed his plan for you Gentiles, a plan kept secret from the beginning of time” [Rom 16.25]. Therefore, we could say that “even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes” [Eph 1.4].
It follows, if believers are described as existing “before the world”, are we preexistent in the same way Jesus is said to be by the Catholic Creeds? I do not think so.
Purposes and Plans are with God from the beginning [the world, angels, humans and Jesus] and are manifested later.
Compare God to Jeremiah:
Compare Job 10:13; 23.14:
One of the most distinguished of all OT scholars, A.B. Davidson, wrote in the Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, art. “God”:
Dear Mark C.
In Post 64, you said:
Rev 21:6-7
(6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end … and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
Mark… I’m going to burst your bubble here, because you just did shoot yourself in the foot, and cost yourself that credibility I was warning you about.
1) The subject of “he shall be my son” is not Jesus, but “he that overcometh” and “he that thirsts”
Rev 21:6-8 KJV
(6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
(7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
(8) But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
2) Alpha and Omega is identified as JESUS CHRIST everywhere in scripture, in clear unmistakable terms. See Revelation 1:8, 1:10-18, and Revelation 22:12-16
Rev 22:12-16 KJV
(12) And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
(13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
(14) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
(15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
(16) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
The only conclusion I can come to is that you didn’t read even a single verse before or after what you jumped in to comment on. How else could you make such an obvious mistake?
In this case, you were so prejudiced that when you saw the word “son” you didn’t need to read any further. You already knew what it was talking about. It’s hard for me to be convinced that you’re making any effort to evaluate this fairly.
If you can recognize that you’re harboring such a potent bias, this can be a useful lesson.
But this also tells me that you probably don’t recognize the significance of 95% of the things I’ve been posting on these forum threads. A well-trained Unitarian would know that “Alpha and Omega” is a theological danger zone, and wouldn’t leap in where Anthony Buzzard fears to tread.
This is not a complete response to your previous post… but that just leaped out at me. It meant that there is absolutely no level of proof that you’d recognize, that your mind wouldn’t flip around backwards.
Why is it that it seems that no one on any of these Unitarian blogs has ever bothered to read the book of Revelation all the way through to the end?
So that verse really “proved your point?” Reversed, and remanded.
-Andrew
I stand corrected. It makes me wonder, then, why you quoted only part of the verse, and in response to my statement about the meaning of the name in Isaiah 9:6. This was your post:
So what does this verse have to do with what I had said?
Well possibly because I was dealing with the multitude of points you made, combined with the fact that you omitted the middle of the verse when you quoted it.
You reach this conclusion because I made one mistake? What about all the other points where I refuted your logic and corrected your factual errors?
And here’s another one. You said:
But you yourself quoted a verse from the OT (back in comment #53) that clearly identified “the first and the last” as YHWH, The LORD of Hosts. (Isa. 44:6 – “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”)
And the verse that you’ve been referring to in Revelation also refers to God, not Jesus. Consider the context:
Revelation 20:
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
…
ch. 21:
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne [i.e., God, ch. 20:11-12] said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
So some of the uses of “Alpha and Omega” or “First and Last” refer to God, and some refer to Jesus. As I have said repeatedly, the fact that the title is used of both does not prove that they are one and the same. God is the first and the last as creator, and Jesus is the first and the last being God’s Son and ultimate representative, and the focal point of all God’s creation, as well as the One whom God has ordained as judge and king.
Dear Mark,
Mark C. wrote
Because for anyone that’s read Revelation, it should be common knowledge that Alpha and Omega is an absolute title for God and Christ! That is, God, AND Christ, as in equivalence, not difference.
I’ve also been repeating this about three times a day for the past several days. I don’t know how this could have been missed. It’s impossible to go into much more detail here because people’s eyes seem to glaze over pretty quickly. These proofs interweave throughout *all* scripture, but it’s especially concentrated in Revelation.
Believe me, I am not trying to “trick” anyone here. At least not like that (I admit I did trick Xavier by luring him into admitting that only Jesus had ascended to heaven.) Anyway, always look at the context of anything anyone quotes.
Mark C. wrote
That’s the point, Mark.
That IS the point.
The “first and the last” is a unique identification for the One God, called LORD in the Old Testament, and Jesus in the New Testament (also other names, but same God).
Those aren’t separate people, Jesus IS YHWH.
The LORD is the first and the last,
Jesus is the first and the last,
Alpha and Omega is the first and the last,
and besides this there is no other God.
One person, but more than one form of address. One God, in a simple primitive sense, that does not deny Him when he appears on earth.
This thread was titled “One God: why does it matter?” – but if you can tell from some of the hostile responses from Xavier, Doubting Thomas, and Robert, it seems that the issue is less about whether there is “One God” but for at least some people, the issue is more about “We Will Not Accept Jesus as God.”
(Without being harsh) I think you dived into a conversation without knowing what we were talking about. That also explains why you were answering in some of the ways you did.
There are also two blog threads running right now, with people hopping back and forth between each one, which makes it more difficult to follow also. Besides this “One God: Why does it matter” thread, there is also a parallel thread running on the “Jesus Only” or “Oneness” thread.
It might take a while, but it might be worthwhile to read both threads from their beginning, before stepping up to “defend against the Trinity.”
I don’t mind if you send me an email. This blog forum is getting pretty clogged already, and as you demonstrated it’s hard to see what’s going on. I don’t mind if you send to the email posted on my http://www.scribd.com/Rning1611 account.
Take care,
-Andrew
Andrew wrote
“This thread was titled “One God: why does it matter?” – but if you can tell from some of the hostile responses from Xavier, Doubting Thomas, and Robert, it seems that the issue is less about whether there is “One God” but for at least some people, the issue is more about “We Will Not Accept Jesus as God.” ”
The issue is about accepting a lie and rebuking the one who spoke it.
Rebuking is a hostile act but doing it out of love for your brother makes it a loving act. My brother would recognize this.
I will defend the truth with my life but not by taken your life so what you see as hostile is nothing more than love for the truth and my brother and hating a lie not hating my brother.
Robert,
You accused me of “sidestepping questions” – yet when asked, you were unable or unwilling to repeat any question you thought I’d sidestepped, but you simply repeated the “sidestepping” charge.
Robert wrote:
You have now leveled an accusation of lying, and you are justifying abusive speech as “rebuke.” (Or are you going to backpedal and say “I never said you were the one?” (Classic backpedal, old, ancient.)
Think about this: if I was leveling similar sorts of unsupported accusations, I would expect to be asked to leave. As I understand this site, it allows and even encourages other perspectives to be voiced, especially if this is done with scriptural support.
If you think I’ve missed a question of yours: remind me. If you think you have “the truth” then face me on an issue. It’s too easy to assume you’re right when there’s no one there to challenge you, when you’re among friends that think the same.
What you should not do is engage in hyena-pack tactics. Obviously, I am outnumbered on this forum. If enough people pitch in, I don’t have the resources to match word-for-word, let alone to stay within the Posted Policy guidelines that limit the amount of blog responses one person should be using at once.
It is a lot easier to level unsupported accusations than it is to defend against them. It’s not brave or noble to dash in and out with several other people, nipping and snapping, yet refusing to engage on a specific point or issue.
So please don’t spam the blog with this type of posting. Address questions, cite scriptures, make specific points. Don’t attack someone’s character and mistake that for “refuting their argument.” All you’ll do is discredit yourself, and by association, your position.
If you have no constructive argument left, consider that perhaps:
1) You should let some of the other people speak
2) You should consider that maybe there is a reason you don’t have convincing arguments
3) Abstain from the appearance of evil, and don’t result to personal attacks and sniping
4) Try to understand the other person, to figure out why they think the way they do.
Your goal should be to “win the person, or be won” – not to “avoid losing at all costs” – because God won’t work with someone that refuses to lose. If you need some examples (or scriptures) to prove that, I’ll show you.
But in the meantime, I talk to you about the unknown God, that is, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the True One God, who calls himself Jesus, the Christ, Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. Not two persons, not three persons, and not twenty persons. One person, one God, that is, Jesus, as spoken of by the apostles and the prophets, and plainly revealed in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
As a note, I have seen “hyena packs” start up before in forums, where the individuals would run away, unable to answer on their own, but leap in when they had another five or six “yes voices” to back them up, and it’s not a proof that you have the superior position.
In a forum where you have superior numbers, you must take extra consideration to remain chivalrous, not try to out-spam the minority voice with personal attacks.
I shouldn’t be having to give this type of lecture. It’s covered under Christianity 101: Love thy neighbor as thyself. If you think you have “evidence” of “lying” then be prepared to come with two or three witnesses: that is, two or three specific examples that you are willing to stake your reputation on – don’t level that charge just because you lost an argument.
-Andrew
Andrew
there has been way more than 3 witnesses showing that what you came with was a lie. Jaco,Xavier,Mark, Thomas and Ron have presented them over and over again. Mark even showed you that He can make mistakes and own up to them even though after he did this you try twisting it to seem he was totally wrong which you knew he wasnt saying that.
Yes I may have stepped over the line again as far as posting here but not as a christian.
when i have something to say i just say it , i dont beat around the bush using big words or hide what i feel within something that can be interpreted to mean same thing.
something is either a lie or its the truth and if with what is clear in the scriptures and and the testamony of Jesus is the truth than me agreeing with you would make me a liar.
when you can show me something without twisting it then and only then will you get my attention till then i should just probably ignore you and support my brothers in this subject.
Xavier you were right , he just lead me to a spot i didnt wasnt to go to.
i have no excuse
As I said, some of the verses that use “first and last” and “alpha and omega” refer to YHWH and some refer to Jesus. Not one says that Jesus is YHWH. The verses in question don’t prove that Jesus is God. You are starting with that belief and reading it back into the verses, which is begging the question.
Nevertheless, since this thread is getting close to ad hominem arguments, and it’s clear neither side is going to convince the other, perhaps it’s time to let it go.
robert,
Dear Mark C.,
Mark C wrote:
This is not “begging the question” or “reading into the verse.” Our Old Testament says that only God is the “first and the last” and the New Testament names Jesus as the “first and the last.” How and the world do you ignore that?
When verses that have the word Jesus in them say he is God, you’ll say that can’t mean God, that it must mean something else.
When it says that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, and then it says that Alpha and Omega is God, you protest that it must be two different people, which goes against everything that language represents.
When Jesus says that he beheld Satan fall as lightning from heaven [explaining why the devils were subject through his name] are you going to claim that he was simply sharing that he saw the documentary on Youtube?
So I have no idea what you consider as evidence. I presume that if it’s written by a Unitarian author, it counts.
Since you want the name YHWH the field is limited to the Old Testament, David names the risen Messiah as YHWH, strong and mighty in battle, the King of Glory. Yes, it is there.
Psa 24:3,7-8
(3) Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?
(7) Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.
(8) Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle.
If you’re looking for the name of Jesus marked as the name of God, that happens as early as the Exodus (and this is not my argument, it’s the argument of the 2nd century church!)
For as you may know, Angel also means messenger, regardless of the nature of man or spirit, and he who led Israel into the promised land had his name specifically changed to Joshua (JESUS), and God said, “My name is in him.”
Num 13:16
(16) These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jehoshua.
Exo 23:20-22
(20) Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
(21) Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
(22) But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.
Exo 24:13
(13) And Moses rose up, and his minister Joshua: and Moses went up into the mount of God.
Num 27:18-20
(18) And the LORD said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him;
(19) And set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation; and give him a charge in their sight.
(20) And thou shalt put some of thine honour upon him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient.
Heb 4:8
(8) For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
Of course, that’s just another coincidence, eh?
You asked to see Jesus named as YHWH? You may have thought that was “safe” since you had a Hebrew-Greek barrier there, but God even provided that, and concealed his name thus far in advance. The “King of Glory” should have been sufficient in its own.
Yet if one must resort to claiming that “first and the last” and “beginning and the end” and “Alpha and Omega” and “Almighty” no longer mean “God” because it can be proven that all these “formerly unique names of God” now also name Jesus, there is no possible name in the bible that you would recognize.
This does, however, provide an interesting answer to the question Sean posed on this thread: “Does it Matter?”
It seems to me that for some people “Monotheism” is really just a code word for “We will never accept Jesus as Our God.” Thus, it isn’t about “One God” – it’s about “Not Jesus” and everything else must follow this prime directive.
I don’t ignore it. I’ve said repeatedly that God and Jesus have many names and titles in common. That is not enough to prove they are the same person. You start with that assumption, apply it to verses that don’t say it, and then claim those verses prove it. That is begging the question.
I handled the few verses that call Jesus God in the article from my web site that I linked to in an earlier post. But you probably haven’t read it. And in contrast to those few verses, there are many that indicate a distinction between God and Jesus, but you refuse to deal with those.
When it says that Saul was King over Israel, and then it says David was King over Israel, does that mean that Saul is David? Language is capable of distinguishing more than one person who are called the same things.
Devils were subject to his name by the power and authority that God gave him.
I consider Scriptural proof to be evidence, most of which you have ignored or glossed over.
Amazing! You AGAIN skipped over the verse that defines who it’s saying will ascend into the hill of the Lord. “Always check the context!”
This would be funny if it weren’t such a serious matter. Any Bible scholar will tell you that Heb. 4:8 should read “Joshua” in English. And the fact that Joshua the son of Nun and Jesus Christ have the same name in Hebrew further proves that two people can have the same name and not be the same person. (Unless you want to suggest that Joshua was really the pre-existent Jesus?) Also, Hebrews makes a clear distinction between Messiah and the angels.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, Jesus is not named in that Psalm.
I didn’t say it “no longer means God.” I said some verses call Jesus that and some call God that. God gave Jesus a name above all names. You still misunderstand the Hebrew concept of agency which allows God’s Son to be called many of the same things that God is called without being God.
Monotheism is not just “code” – it literally means we will not accept ANYONE as God other than YHWH. Jesus agreed, since he called His Father the ONLY TRUE GOD.
Dear Mark,
What is the point of having a name, if it is not used for designation? How about reading the scripture to see what God says about his name?
Isa 42:8
(8) I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
Isa 48:11-12
(11) For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.
(12) Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
The primary defense of your argument is that Jesus has taken the glory of God, that he has taken the names and designation of God, and it doesn’t matter!
These two verses alone wreck havoc on your entire “God shares his names with Jesus” theory, and “there is more than one first and the last” defense.
What do you think the “not” means in “I will not give my glory unto another?” Are you going to claim that there are “too many words” between the word “another” and “I am the first, I am also the last” for it to remain in context?
The whole conclusion of this is that you have declared that “the first and the last” is not God!
Some wrap up points:
This would be funny if it weren’t such a serious matter. Any Bible scholar will tell you that Heb. 4:8 should read “Joshua” in English. And the fact that Joshua the son of Nun and Jesus Christ have the same name in Hebrew further proves that two people can have the same name and not be the same person. (Unless you want to suggest that Joshua was really the pre-existent Jesus?)
Please don’t try to play the “I’m a scholar” card, because I’m not impressed by such “credentials.” Note the following:
1) Joshua the Son of Nun is well recognized as being a foreshadowing symbol representing the Christ, taking over from Moses, and leading God’s people over into Canaan.
2) Hebrews 4:8 appropriately reads “Jesus” because the book of Hebrews is translated from Koine Greek, not Masoretic Hebrew. Are you going to claim that Matthew 11:14 “Elias”, Matthew 2:17 “Jeremy”, and Matthew 24:37 “Noe” are mistranslations that would baffle only “Bible scholars?”
3) Any legitimate Bible scholar ought to recognize that the word “angel” also means “messenger.” The same Hebrew word malak (translated 112 times as angel) is also used 101 times as messenger.
I already know that this is a sensitive spot for Unitarian theology, because a different meaning of “genus and species” must be imposed in all cases, to crowd out instances where “angel” actually is applied to “God.” This word has a legitimate range of meaning.
Joshua the Son of Nun was that Angel, that was sent before the children of Israel, whom were commanded to obey his voice. Did Israel listen to an invisible man booming from the sky, or were they expected to heed Joshua, who unlike the coming Christ, who would not pardon their transgressions, nor forgive their sins?
The Bible is full of foreshadowing like this (something any real Bible scholar would recognize. As Moses lifted up the brass serpent in the wilderness, Our Messiah was that Passover Lamb that was slain in Egypt, and the son of Nun was chosen to bear the name of he who said, “my name is in him.”
4) A protest that someone else bore the name is a futile argument, because the entire point here is that God revealed his name in this fashion thousands of years previous. If the son of Nun was not a recognized foreshadowing of Christ, you might have a case for ignoring this.
I’ll remind you that it was you that asked for this type of proof: you wanted to see YHWH (Hebrew) called Jesus (Greek.) That was your challenge. If you are being objective, you need to put this on the scale of “accumulated evidence” … you are making a list and weighing them, aren’t you?
The only thing you could do is deny, deny, deny. When I read this psalm to traveling Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and stop after it says “Who is this King of Glory” do you know what answer I hear from them?
a) The Unitarian says “Jesus Christ”
b) The Jehovah’s Witnesses say “Sounds like Jesus”
Strange, how these people all said that Jesus Christ was named in this Psalm! Can I be accused of selecting a biased audience for my test subjects?
When I read the next sentence, they hear:
a) The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle
b) JEHOVAH strong and mighty, JEHOVAH mighty in battle
And I get silence. Disbelief. They quickly glance at their New World Translation (that I asked to read from) to make sure I wasn’t reading that wrong. But I’d read it exactly, and they admitted what it said with their own words already.
You see, they had no reason before to think that the Psalm suddenly switched to talking about someone different. That’s only an argument you had to invent after the fact and you’re not being honest enough with yourself to recognize this.
So please don’t take cheap shots and accuse me of “omitting context” – the full text was already posted just one step above, people do have their own bibles, and I was trying to abbreviate my post to make it more readable.
Believe me, I would weigh in “half the canon” on this argument if I was allowed the space, but the name of God is the most potent proof I can compact in a short space.
Mark wrote:
You have presented scriptural proof of … what? You haven’t been trying to win me, you’ve been on the defensive.
I’ve only seen silly arguments that “If God were to manifest himself in the flesh he would have insomnia” and “there are phrases like God and the Lamb” in Revelation.
Well, so what? Scripture also speaks of “God and his Father” and I don’t hear any arguments that this means that these are two different people. You’d admit that is obviously an equivalence there, but you won’t allow it anywhere enough to even seriously consider anything else.
Mark wrote:
1) Did you issue me an invitation to look at your web site, or are was I supposed to notice the green color under the name Mark C? If it makes you feel better, I’m happy you have a web site. I wish I had the resources to improve mine.
2) If I had found such a link on my own, where would I have found said article anyway? I see nothing of the sort there now. And even then, why would you expect me to respond to an article-length paper within the restricted limits of a blog response? That’s simply inappropriate.
3) If I am expected to hunt down your web site, and look for any article that might be relevant from there, did you likewise follow my link, or respond to any of the invitations I’ve posted for someone to talk with me via private email?
And what would you consider scriptural evidence, if when the LORD says that he will not allow his name to be polluted, and will not share his glory with another, that he is the first and the last” … you’ve decided that “first and the last” no longer qualifies as the LORD?
You’re not using scriptural evidence, you are first placing the ideal of the Greek philosophers as unquestionable, what you are calling “Monotheism” – and if anything interferes with this, such as Jesus walking up and saying “I am the first and the last, the beginning and the end, he who they pierced, the Almighty, the Alpha and Omega, and I shall be your God” you simply will not believe him.
(Surely, he just means he is “a perfect agent of…” etc etc etc. That’s the “one size cure all” of Unitarianism, just like inserting “Family” after the word “God” is the cure all for Binitarianism.)
Thus, you will worship an “unknown god” that you put forth never can be known, because he must always use agents. You say that you are interested in reading the Bible from a Hebrew perspective: but you’ve let someone tell you that Greek is Hebrew.
I still extend an offer for you (or anyone) to talk with me via email. You can find my address by following the web link easily enough.
This forum is crowded, no one has the energy to read this through from start to end, nor is it an ideal presentation.
Besides, this type of discussion should really be one-on-one, and tailored to each individual’s concerns. And considering that you think this such a vital topic, were you really trying to “win me” before?
Or is that it already?
* A Greek philosophy “divine agency” passed off as “Hebrew”,
* A convenient defense of “mistranslation” and “spurious text”,
* God no longer means God when God appeared to his creation in the past,
* Names shall longer longer name or retain their meaning,
* an unquestioned presuming of “two persons,”
* interpreting the intentionally vague as being superior to plain revelation and prophecy,
* And avoiding considering some messy problems and contradictions such a doctrine creates, i.e. the “Jesus Gamble” question and “salvation by works.”
Surely, there must be very solid “scriptural proofs” to outweigh these weaknesses? Surely, Jesus somewhere in Revelation says “I am not your God” or bows down with the saints and worships before the throne? Surely somewhere Jesus would tell someone not to worship him? Someplace? Anyplace?
Why don’t you talk to me via email? It would put both of us at ease if we could talk privately.
Take care,
-Andrew
Andrew,
are you aware that God is called elohim in the OT (Gen 1.), and so are Humans (Psalm 82)?
Dear Joseph,
Quite aware, and even familiar with the Unitarian arguments that usually follow such an observation.
Were you aware that God is called malak in the Old Testament (Genesis 48:16) and so are men? (Genesis 32:3) and that likewise both God and his created angels are called men? (Genesis 18:1-2)?
My standard of proof doesn’t depend on a swing usage of Hebrew word elohim – and besides, it’s translated correctly in the Authorized text already.
Thanks for introducing this Psalm. Usually people just try to pull a snippet from the gospels, but I’d like to call this audience’s attention to the actual words, from the Hebrew context for a change.
1) Previously in the book of John, whom did Jesus say judgeth men? (See John 5:22)
2) In Psalm 82, who does it say judgeth these “gods” that die like men? (verses 1 and
3) Was Jesus simply a “god” in the meaning of this Psalm? Was Jesus an earthly judge or prince of that world? Or were the Pharisees that accused him?
4) If Jesus was merely a “god” … did he die like men, and fall like one of the princes?
5) Or did Jesus arise, after three days and three nights, As God, to judge the earth, to inherit all nations? Doesn’t the coming King and Messiah inherit all nations?
6) Did you realize that this is yet another prophecy where the Messiah is called God, not in the sense of “gods” but where there can be no mistake, because this God judges those who are “called gods?”
Now, Jesus did not call himself one of the “gods” of Psalm 84… so what did he call himself?
Joh 10:33-36
(33) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
(34) Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
(35) If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
(36) Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
And what does the “Son of God” mean to the Hebrew people, the Jews, and the Pharisees? Let’s ask a Pharisee of Pharisees, who tells us what it meant and how it was understood in that first century when Christ lived! Paul says that the Son of God means uncreated, eternal, and immortal.
* King of Righteousness (see Jeremiah 23:6, the LORD our Righteousness)
* King of Salem, which is, King of peace (see Isaiah 9:6, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace)
* Without father, without mother, without descent …. neither beginning of days, nor end of life… Who only hath immortality? (1 Timothy 6:16 … Jesus Christ only hath immortality.)
* Like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually…
Problem questions for Unitarians to consider:
1) the meaning of the word “Son of God” means without father, without mother, without descent, neither beginning of days, nor end of life…. in other words, immortal, eternal, and uncreated, that is, God. The Son of God is God.
2) Since God created the world alone (Isaiah 37:16) how would you argue that this immortal eternal uncreated was not God in the flesh? And if you think Melchizadek is dead, how does he abide a priest continually?
Does it make sense now? The Jews were not placated by Christ’s response, because he didn’t say he was not God, but because he further called himself God, warned them of the coming judgment, and made them look stupid at the same time.
If the Hebrew understanding of “Son of God” was a “mere mortal who obeys the Torah” they wouldn’t have picked up rocks again to stone him for blasphemy.
Take care Joseph,
-Andrew
Andrew,
Thank you for explaining, which clarifies as we will see, your whole argument is based upon defining the title ‘Son of God’ as equal in definition to ‘The Almighty God.’
As far as John 10 goes I’m going to disagree with your assertion. I’ll break it down for you…
First off, it is a fact that to call oneself a Ruler, Judge, or Messiah, or any other title making oneself high, and not to be accepted as truth to the current accepted view (whether is it true or not) is considered blasphemy.
Next, God in this passage should be translated as Jesus defined it, with a little (g), in the next verse, which we will clearly see…
Jesus understood that they were calling him a god (elohim), not God. Otherwise, what would be the point of Jesus referring to Psalm 82? It would be ridiculous for Jesus to relate the true God to simply a lesser god.
Next…
This is beautiful! Here we have Jesus now telling those accusing him that if God can call them (humans) gods, the same gods (elohim) that Jesus relates to himself in his defense (see previous verse), AND, from whom the word of God CAME.
Next…
Here we have a lot going on. First, the Father (Jesus’ God, John 20:17) is the one whom sanctified him. Second, Jesus’ God, is the one whom sent him unto the world. Third, Jesus’ defines who he is, the Son of God in direct parrallel to the one he calls his God, THE FATHER…
Just for reference…
So let’s take Jesus’ definition of his God, which would be the Father, and now let’s apply that to our John 10 passage, and then we get a clear distinction from the one who is a God, god, or Son of God.
Now, could you please site for us one time in scripture where the Father is defined as someone other than God? Because if Jesus is God, then God has a God by Jesus’ definition of God in John 20:17.
Oh, one more question… According the Messianic Psalm 110 which is currently being fulfilled, how do you explain a resurrected Messiah in a body, sitting next to the throne of a spirit God, and that making only one God?
Thanks Andrew,
- Joseph
Dear Joseph,
concerning:
Really? Where would I find this defined as such?
http://www.dictionary.com, search on blasphemy
You continued your reasoning with:
Jesus wasn’t calling himself the “gods” of Psalm 82. Those were the Pharisees, the unjust rulers, who would die like men. Surely you aren’t implying that Jesus was calling himself one of those unjust rulers?
Note that the words were, “Ye are gods…” The word “Ye” is plural, that is, applying to more than one person, i.e. his accusers.
The “God” that I suggest Jesus would have compared himself to in the Psalm is “Arise, O God, and judge the earth. For thou shalt inherit all nations.”
So, Joseph… you didn’t answer the direct questions in that reply.
1) Who judges the earth? Answer: Jesus
2) Who does not die like men, but arises? Answer: Jesus
3) Who inherits all nations? Answer: Jesus
You’d have a better argument if you’d said that the word “God” (not gods) in this Psalm was prophetic about the Messiah. But if you had done that, then, yes, the Jewish meaning of “the Son of God” does matter for this particular argument. I’ve come to expect that type of sophistry, though, which is why I stepped ahead to defining “Son of God.”
So how come you seem to disagree with Paul concerning the Son of God? Is Paul not Hebrew enough for you?
Php 3:5 KJV
(5) Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
I’ll forgive you this time, and answer your questions anyway (next time, answer your questions, don’t slough them.)
Irrelevant question, whether “the Father” is God is not disputed.
Jesus is perfectly allowed to refer to himself as both “God” and “my God” which he did when he was on earth. After he had ascended, he is recognized my men as “my God” and freely identified as Lord and God, and in the Revelation of Jesus Christ he calls himself by every distinctive title of God, he is revealed as He who sits upon the throne, and says he will be OUR God.
And as further example, Psalm 24 says that the King of Glory, that is, the LORD, receives his blessing from the Lord.
Please understand that your specific argument falls flat from a “Oneness” perspective. God’s bigger than us, but when Jesus spoke to us, as one of us, and lived as us, he would use speech we would understand.
If they got confused when he said that Lazarus slept, how confused do you think they’d be if he said “I go to myself?” Regardless, here’s some examples of how God speaks to himself, swears by himself, and blesses himself.
Heb 1:8 KJV
(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.
Jer 22:5 KJV
(5) But if ye will not hear these words, I swear by myself, saith the LORD, that this house shall become a desolation.
Psa 24:5, 10 KJV
(5) He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.
(10) Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory. Selah.
You asked your question two:
Metaphor. Are you wanting to make a case that there is a separate God in a body, with a literal right hand, with a different body named Jesus sitting next to it? Is this about seating arrangements?
Unless you’re willing to make that argument, you’ve already acknowledged the metaphor. The “Right Hand of God” means that you wield all the power and authority of God, and can only be handled by God anyway.
But guess what? This leads back to Melchizadek.
Psa 110:4 KJV
(4) The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
You never did answer concerning Melchizadek – remember, that guy who was immortal, eternal, uncreated, nor end of life, Priest of the most high God, the King of Salem, that is, the King of peace, who abideth a priest for ever continually?
Conclusion:
1) Trying to redefine blasphemy as “annoys the rulers” isn’t going to fly… and that is hardly a “fact” as you call it. Blasphemy is specific.
2) Jesus was obviously not calling himself one of the “gods” of that Psalm – but he was calling himself the God that judges those gods.
3) Yes, this particular argument does hinge on the meaning of “the Son of God” as you acknowledged – but you dodged that question entirely. Are you more Hebrew than Paul?
4) It is no problem for me to understand why God would choose to play multiple “parts” within metaphorical speech. When Mary was searching for Jesus, didn’t he also play the part of a gardener? God can bless himself, receive himself unto himself, and it’s not like he’s going to have a different God.
Remember, for a while people thought there would be two Messiahs, because they couldn’t figure out how those could be one.
Also, I have personally served in multiple roles where I had multiple names and titles, and where the easily confused might think I was two persons… and for technical reasons, I was. I won’t use the exact titles here, but translating, I was both “Leader” and “Chief Justice” at the same time, not to mention “common Citizen” where I would need both signatures, or have to approve one act of myself by the other of myself. My point being, it’s not as an uncommon scenario as you might think.
5) Think about Melchizadek. That’s a big major problem for the Unitarian model, because it doesn’t want to admit ever that God could be his own priest, and it also defines what is meant by “Son of God”
Anyway, thanks Joseph,
-Andrew
P.S. If you took a normal person, like you or me, and gave them omnipotence and permission to rule this world for 24 hours, would they actually be God during that time? I’d say “no” – think about it.
Wow! If a man or a nation, tribe, or people, were given the powers of heaven, and permission to rule, and if they were of the character
and nature of God by Jesus Christ, they could actually be God in a sense, that is, they could be like God, that is if they were holy and according to Christ in every way.
I didn’t include the Righteousness of God in that scenario: only the power. I think a more proper descriptive would be “the god of this world…” and we would all be praying for the true God to return, quickly.
2Co 4:4 KJV
(4) In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
My point being, that the person of Our God is not defined by what powers he is exercising at the time: he is defined by his character, his nature, his personality, his love.
And the reason I mentioned this, is because one of the arguments used against Christ’s divinity is that he did not exercise all of his powers while he was on earth. But powers, money, or status doesn’t define a person, and it doesn’t matter if your current form is of flesh, spirit, or steel, but the heart and mind of a person does define them.
Thus, Our God is more than a sum of powers, and even if God has a power and chooses to limit himself, or to allow something for a time, it does not mean he is not Our God.
Take care,
-Andrew
Jesus has not taken the glory of God. He always gave God the glory, always declared that the Father was greater than he was, and that he had no power but that which God gave him. God gave him a name above every other human name, but not above God Himself.
Phil. 2:
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
I Cor. 15:
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
That is not what I said. I said (once again) some verses apply it to God and some apply it to Jesus.
I didn’t say “I’m a scholar.” I said any Bible scholar will tell you that Heb. 4:8 should read “Joshua” in English.
That he was a foreshadow of Christ is not in question. That has nothing to do with the point we are discussing, which was whether the name of Jesus is marked as the name of God.
The name Iesous is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew name Yehoshua, from which it is derived. Both are translated either Jesus or Joshua.
No, because there is no other Elijah, Jeremiah, or Noah, with which they would be confused. But since Jesus and Joshua are English variations of the same name, it makes a difference which is used. The context of Hebrews 4:8 shows that it must be Joshua and not Jesus, as it also does in Acts 7:45. Most modern English Bibles correct these verses to read “Joshua.”
Again, that is not in question. But whether the angel referred to in Exodus 23 is Joshua or a literal “spirit-being” angel, the phrase “my name is in him” simply means that he would act in God’s name, with the authority of God. None of this comes close to proving that Jesus is identified as YHWH.
Again, Joshua being a type of Christ is not in question. But my point was that the book of Hebrews makes a distinction between the (literal) angels and Christ.
Again, the foreshadowing is not in question and I don’t ignore it. But God’s name being in Joshua has nothing to do with Jesus being YHWH.
On the contrary, the only thing I need to do is quote, quote, quote. What part of “This is the generation of them that seek him” do you not understand?
I can’t speak for JW’s, but I know of no Unitarian that would say it was Jesus Christ, since it clearly says, “Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty.” No Unitarian would confuse YHWH (the LORD) with Jesus.
I didn’t invent it. I just read it. Verses 3-5 are identified in verse 6: “This is the generation of them that seek him.” The whole Psalm is talking about the majesty of God, beginning in verse 1. Verses 3-6 point out that purity is required of His people. Verse 5 even says, “He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.” If it were talking about Jesus, whom you claim is YHWH, that verse would make no sense.
Then verses 7-10 further exalt God. Many commentaries concur that this section is referring to the entrance of the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. But in any case it is exalting the King of Glory, who is YHWH strong and mighty. The whole Psalm is about exalting God. There is no mention of Jesus, since verses 3-6 are about “the generation of them that seek him.”
It is plain that you have made up your mind, so I don’t try to “win” you. I simply point out the errors in your logic and the incorrect information that you state. I do this mainly for those who read this, and for the sake of the truth.
I don’t know who said that but it wasn’t me.
Sorry about that. I thought I had posted the link in this thread, but apparently it was in one of the others with ongoing Trinity debates.
I have an article on my site titled, “Who Is Messiah?” that deals with all the usual arguments about Jesus being God. You can read it here:
http://godskingdomfirst.org/WhoIsMessiah.htm
I don’t expect you to respond to every point, but at least you’ll get an overview of where I’m coming from and why I believe what I do. Also, I started posting it here in installments this week, so you can discuss the parts in separate threads.
Which link are you referring to? As for private email, what’s wrong with discussing here? Besides, I just got your email that raised a bunch of other questions, which I will respond to as soon as I can.
Where did you get the idea that I am “placing the ideal of the Greek philosophers as unquestionable”? It was Greek philosophy that was the origin of the ideas that led to the Trinity. The idea of Monotheism is decidedly NOT Greek. It originated with the Hebrew Scriptures, and Jesus confirmed it when he quoted the Shema.
Why use hypothetical quotes? We have records of what Jesus DID say. He said he was the Son of God, the Messiah. He did say “I am the first and the last, the beginning and the end, the Alpha and Omega.” and he is referred to as “he whom they pierced.” But he is not called “the Almighty,” and he did not say, “and I shall be your God.”
I never said that. He has used agents in the past, but now because of Jesus (the ultimate agent) we have access to Him.
I don’t know where you get that from. The principle of agency is a Hebrew concept (called shaliach) and has nothing to do with Greek philosophy.
If there are mistranslations (and there are) I point them out, not out of convenience, but for the sake of the truth.
I didn’t say “God no longer means God.” But there are clear passages where His angels are addressed as if they were God. I deal with this in “Who Is Messiah?” and you can also read about it here:
http://www.intergate.com/~jcordaro/Theo.html
I didn’t say that.
I don’t presume. If they are presented in Scripture as two persons, I accept it as true.
I didn’t say that, either.
I don’t know what the “Jesus Gamble” is, and I don’t know what “Salvation by works” has to do with who Jesus is.
There are several specific distinctions made between Jesus and God, which I listed in the first installment of “Who Is Messiah?”
I am at ease here. Are you not at ease? We are having a public debate that anyone can join in. Why do we need to make it private? Besides, as I said, I am not trying to “win” you since it’s clear your mind is made up. Debating it in public enables others who read it to benefit from the exchange.
Perhaps it would make it easier if we addressed one issue at a time. That could be done in the comments to my “Who Is Messiah?” series, since this thread is so long already.
Hello Andrew,
Thanks for posting the definition, and I still stand by my reasoning as we will see in the next paragraph…
Not at all, I’m just pointing out the fact that Jesus used another analogy besides God to compare himself with. It is clear that God is not a man as we are told in scripture, so why would God contrast himself to man in his own defense? Hmm…
Jesus is quoting from Psalm 82 and those that are called gods (elohim).
Good questions…
Who gave that authority to Jesus? It was the one that Jesus defines as HIS GOD AND OUR GOD in John 20:17, the Father.
No, you sidestepped the issue and made a spurious claim that Son of God actually means God when there is nothing in scripture for one to believe so. In fact, the great confession of Peter on the identity of Jesus was that he is Messiah, Son of the living God. Therefore Peter defines the title Son in contrast to Messiah, not at all meaning he was God.
I think Paul is fine as who he is.
That’s awfully kind of you, Andrew.
It’s a very relevant question and you are not answering it because it doesn’t exist.
I already proved that in John 10 Jesus contrasted his identity with the elohim in Psalm 82, therefore for Jesus to be called elohim does not negate him being the Son of God, Messiah, under the one God that he defined as HIS GOD, the Father, in John 20:17.
So, if you believe that Jesus is being called the almighty God in John 20:28, then you believe that God has a God. No way around it because Jesus just finished a few verses earlier defining who is his God. lol
Agreed, because the glory was GIVEN to him. Here we are talking about God giving Messiah glory as stated by Jesus in John 17:3.
This is a strawman argument, you are arguing from what you think what God would have done. I can use your same reasoning against you and say that you are making yourself bigger than God, in saying that you know how he would have limited himself to his creation’s understanding. Not that I think that is your position, but your logic is along the same reasoning. I think that we can both agree that we can argue on what we THINK God would have done and acted till we go blue in the face.
What scripture says is that Jesus spoke, ate, sleeped, died, ect, as one of us because he was one of us. He now has further been exalted to be a high priest forever, a position given to one that is not God.
Great verses, but proves nothing. Here is a little study for you to figure out the context of all those verses you just quoted from. Get out your concordance and tell me how many singular personal pronouns there are?
Even if it is a Metaphor and Jesus is not literally next to the throne of God in a resurrected body, it still doesn’t negate the fact that the Father, the one that Jesus defined as HIS GOD (John 20:17) is the one who exalted him to his position. Oh, don’t forget the parallel…
24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Here is what it says…
1The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Is there any debate here in which LORD is calling the shots?
I have no problem with this because it was given to him, just as he is going to sit on the throne in the New Kingdom and rule for his God. The position of Melchizadek high priest is designated to those who are not God.
And specific was Christ’s answer in defense of him denying that he was God by affirming his position is the Son of God. If he were God why would he call himself by another title when being accused of his own being? We can make accusations, but the text is clear, Jesus calls himself the Son of God.
His defense was that if they can be called gods (elohim) then what is it for him to call himself… God?, no… the Son of God.
Irrelevant analogy, we are talking about the identity of Messiah in relation to God.
I’m glad you hold confidence in your beliefs, but that doesn’t supersede what scripture says.
The two Messiah belief is an interesting one, it is in the Talmud (see Ben Yosef and Ben David). But, it is irrelevant to our discussion.
Again, you are putting your own logic and experiences and projecting them onto what you think God did or didn’t do. I find it much easier just to stick to what scripture says.
Melchizadek is not a problem at all for one who does not believe that Jesus is God. It is a problem for those that do believe Jesus is God because a priesthood position is not needed for God, but given to man from God.
Thank you, Andrew, for taking the time to express your viewpoints. It is public debates like this that get us reaching and searching for more truth.
- Joseph
One quick response:
Mark C. wrote:
So this guy, that said he was a biblical Unitarian, that didn’t want to talk about Conditional Immortality or any other subject, but only wanted to try to convince me that Jesus was Not God, using a book by “Lord” Anthony Buzzard as his research material….
You’re saying this guy was not a Unitarian?
A Unitarian *does* confuse Christ and LORD, if he is cut off from his notes, his prompts, and his books telling him what to expect, and is only shown plain scripture, and doesn’t have an answer already prepared to immunize against each new proof.
All I did was read straight from the Psalm, and stop after the words “Who is this King of Glory?” Then I asked him for the answer. He wasn’t “immunized” so he answered correctly without equivocating, that is, “JESUS CHRIST.”
Likewise, I’m pretty sure you would have given the same answer, in the same situation… but since I’ve already shown it to you, we can’t run a fair test.
But you already failed a similar test: you recognized Alpha and Omega, Jesus Christ, as YHWH in Revelation. Now you’ve backpedaled, and seem to think that God gave his names and his glory to another.
Concerning the Unitarian “Divine Agency” model – it is Greek philosophy, with Jewish window-dressing. You’ve been so busy noticing pagan influences in the Trinity, that you haven’t noticed the philosophical influence on your own doctrine. The Perfect God of Greek philosophy does not allow himself to suffer… and does not directly interact with creation, only through agents (hints of Gnosticism…) “Passion is a weakness, and no ethos could ever allow himself to die on a cross.”
Ironically, Unitarianism shares traits with Trinitarianism in this regard – they both seem to regard “patripassionism” as one of the worst possible heresies.
Mark C. wrote:
If you’re not trying to “win” me, I have no real interest in talking with you any further. That statement really means that you already have your mind “made up” and are rationalizing that it is OK by attempting to paint me with the same color. It means that you are an insincere debater that is not willing to “stake their belief” or “bet their life.”
Talk to me when you are sincere.
-Andrew
Dear Joseph,
you wrote:
Jesus is the “God who judgeth the gods…” in Psalm 82. As in “Arise, O God, and judge the earth, for thou shalt inherit the nations.” That whole “arising” part should be a clue, and besides, Jesus said that He was that Judge just 5 chapters earlier.
And who is Jesus? God. Same person, all the good parts. You seem to think that you’re talking to a Trinitarian. If all your arguments are founded on a premise of “two persons” this will continue to go around in circles.
Seriously, I don’t want this to run around in circles. This is very simple…. but people here start with one question, and before they finish they lapse back into a “2 person” model and think they’ve proved something with circular logic (proving 2 persons by assuming 2 persons.)
Joseph wrote:
1) Paul himself said that “Son of God” means without end of life, nor beginning of days. You can’t say there isn’t scripture to support that (or do you not accept Hebrews as scripture?)
2) Peter wasn’t incorrect – but at the time of that confession, I don’t think he realized the full implication of what he said. This is an example of what I meant, that Unitarian proofs depend on speculating on the vague, and ignoring the concrete.
(I seem to remember Peter didn’t have the Gentile thing figured out instantly, either… but he recognized the King of Glory – see Acts 2 – why did he emphasize that David had not ascended?)
What do these apostles say later? What is revealed through the prophets, the Acts of the Apostles, through Paul, and finally, through Revelation?
Excellent, Joseph. May we please fast forward to this verse 28? Can we agree that this time when “the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” is at the conclusion of Revelation?
At the end, it reveals who sits upon the throne, the final identity of the first and the last (see Isaiah 44:6) besides which there is no other God.
Isa 44:6 KJV
(6) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Rev 21:5-7 KJV
(5) And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
(6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
(7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
Rev 22:13,16 KJV
(13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
(16) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
God speaks in parables, so that hearing they will not hear, and seeing they will not see, so they will not understand. God is allowed to be vague, but you should never ignore him when he is direct.
That’s from the gospel of Joseph [you], not scripture. Another term for that is “unsupported denial.” Consider for a moment, that you (I assume) already allow Jesus to be both the Good Shepherd and the Lamb, the Judge and the Intercessor. In our normal world, no one person plays both roles.
It is entirely relevant. Just as these Jews made the mistake of seeing two persons in the Messiah, and they could not see how they could both be the same person, this demonstrates how you could make the same mistake, and not recognize God as both Messiah and Lord.
Then believe the book of Revelation, when Jesus shows up directly and says exactly who is he! Stop equivocating and trying to reason that “first and the last” no longer has the same meaning because Jesus said “I am the first and the last, the beginning and the end, Alpha and Omega, the Almighty.”
Rev 1:8, 11, 17-18 KJV
(8) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
(11) Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: …
(17) And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
(18) I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Rev 21:6-7 KJV
(6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
(7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
You say you believe scripture? That same Lord which “liveth, and was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore” is also “the Lord which is, and which was, and which is to come.”
Rev 4:8-9 KJV
(8) And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
(9) And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,
I understand why the disciples would have been confused before the Crucifixion, and I even understand why younger Christians in the faith would have trouble understanding how God could be manifest in the flesh, but if your answer is that you “believe scriptures” and are not basing things on your “own experience” then scripture clearly says that Jesus is Our God, and there is no other.
And ironically, all of your arguments against are based on your own experiences, thinking that there must be at least two people, that God can’t really play all those parts.
[After listening to all of this] I really think I understand you better now. You’re trying very hard to figure out what the earliest primitive church believed, so much that you’ve overemphasized what people thought about Jesus when he was alive, that you’ve mistaken what they taught after his Ascension, Pentecost, and Revelation (and even then, new Christians would have different understandings, depending upon their background in paganism, philosophy, etc.)
Take care,
-Andrew
Again, that’s not what I said. I said “I know of no Unitarian that would say it was Jesus Christ.” All the Unitarians I know recognize the difference between The LORD (YHWH) and Jesus Christ.
I don’t know who this person was, but he is not representative of all Unitarians. Just because he misread the Psalm doesn’t mean all Unitarians would.
I read the Psalm the first time you referred to it, and never considered that “The LORD” meant Jesus Christ.
I didn’t backpedal. I’ve said all along that in some verses it is God and in others it’s Jesus.
Can you provide any proof for this statement?
Are you suggesting that your mind is not made up and you could be won? How would that jive with your picture of a debater that is willing to “stake their belief” or “bet their life”? I could tell that you wouldn’t be convinced no matter what I said when you kept repeating the same things and ignoring the points that I made. I get tired of repeating myself when it doesn’t seem to be sinking in.
Besides, I never said my mind wasn’t made up. How many debates have you seen where both sides were not convinced they were right? The object is to see who makes a better case, and let the spectators make up their minds. You presented your view, so I presented mine, in the interest of equal time.
You don’t know me so you can’t judge my sincerity. But even if you could it doesn’t matter because it’s not about me. Talk to me when you want to deal with the issues.
Dear Mark. C,
I always leave myself open for considering evidence, but I don’t know what class of evidence would be possible to produce to outweigh the simple “Jesus says he is God” that everyone else here tries to explain away.
It’s not uncommon for people to not know what would convince them, and it’s usually after the fact that someone is able to clearly say “That was what got my attention.”
You certainly can’t expect to win anybody if you don’t allow them an equal (meaning fair) chance to win you. And that means you need to be willing to consider their argument from their angle, in its best possible light.
Your “points” were not effective, nor were you being fair in your evaluations. Perhaps the fault was not in me.
Were this a fair debate forum, that might make sense. But this is a blog, and it’s lacking basic ground rules, and it’s actually pretty chaotic (and let’s not talk about formatting restrictions…)
One question: are you going to try to convince me, or are you wanting to debate for display?
Because I offered a private discussion, but you refused. That makes me think you are more concerned with”debating for display” – because in a private forum, there’s no audience to impress, no crowd to play for, and it’s a whole lot easier to shelf ego, and one doesn’t need to be so on guard for trick questions.
I would be interested in seeing what you would outline as “important issues that would determine victory either way” however. Don’t try proving anything one way or another, just present an outline. If you did that, I wouldn’t mind a *constructive* discussion.
Because if this subject does matter then shouldn’t you be able to persuade Bible-believing primitive early church style Jesus-is-Our-One-God guy, seeing that you also claim the same Bible?
Take care,
-Andrew
P.S. You asked about my claim that Unitarianism was “Greek philosophy with Hebrew window dressing” …
Click here to read an article of how the God of Greek philosophy does not suffer, and deals with the world only through Agents…
The God of Greek philosophy always deals with his world through … agents … never himself a belief also shared with Gnosticism. In fact, one of the other posters even parroted the Gnostic reasoning behind this – the “sin filled world is corrupt” so God wouldn’t make an appearance.
You could also find some of this by researching “Gnosticism” on Wikipedia, etc.
Col 2:8-9 KJV
(8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
(9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
I once was asked by a trinitarian, “What’s God’s name?” I answered “Jesus”.
He walked away. I wondered if he was thinking that I confessed that Jesus is God. I did not. However, I did testify to the character of God, and described it as being as his Son Jesus is.
I don’t know what class of evidence would convince you, either, since you are convinced that “Jesus says he is God,” when in fact he says no such thing.
I have considered your arguments, and spent quite a bit of time on them in fact. But your arguments simply don’t hold water. Between quoting out of context, completely misunderstanding the meanings of certain passages, and inexplicably ignoring major points that I made, you have yet to produce anything remotely convincing.
And yet you could offer no proof to the contrary, and in most cases just ignored my points.
More people read these things than actually post, and it is my prayer that they may get something out of these discussions even if you don’t. But there is nothing stopping you from dealing with points I made.
I believe I answered that already in my last post. I don’t see anything in your posts that leads me to believe you are genuinely seeking answers, but that you just want to argue your views.
At the very least, it would be necessary to acknowledge the points that are made, and either agree or show proof of why you disagree. You have started to do that in many posts, but when I pointed out the flaws in your arguments, it has just come down to “yes it is, no it isn’t” arguing with no proof.
Not if he’s convinced that the primitive early church believed that Jesus is our One God.
Actually you claimed that the principle of Divine Agency was “Greek philosophy with Hebrew window dressing,” not Unitarianism. Greek philosophy and gnosticism may have had the characteristics you mention (suffering is a mark of weakness, etc.) but the principle of Divine Agency is found in the Old Testament Scriptures which were around way before Socrates and the roots of Greek philosophy. It can even be demonstrated in the Hebrew Scriptures themselves, as I have pointed out. I deal with it in “Who Is Messiah?” and you can also read about it here:
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2010/01/21/divine-agency-in-the-scriptures/#comment-58127
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=894&letter=A&search=agency
http://www.intergate.com/~jcordaro/Theo.html
You can also simply Google “Divine Agency” or “Shaliach.”
Meanwhile I’ll look at the article you linked to, and work on my reply to the emails you sent.
Dear Mark C,
Thanks for writing back by email.
If you think a “debate” would be constructive, try designing “winning conditions” and defining what would need to be decided one way or another: what would need to be proven, or disproved. Then try to think of some sensible rules.
See if you can impress me by being objective.
Take care,
-Andrew
Andrew,
I’m not sure a debate would be constructive. As I pointed out before, you keep repeating the same things and ignoring my rebuttals, as well as quoting out of context and misinterpreting both things I said and passages of Scripture. If you want to review the thread and reply to some of my rebuttals, feel free. Or, you could start fresh by commenting on my “Who Is Messiah?” posts. But I have no interest in repeating what I’ve already said.
Guys,
Don’t you all think you have exhausted this topic amongst yourselves already? Stop beating a dead horse.
Agree to disagree!