Demons don’t believe in The Trinity!
June 6th, 2009 by Ron S.
I’ve often thought that the “incarnation” excuse of trinitarians is totally absurd. A “fully God” AND “fully man” Jesus just wouldn’t be temptable. One of the givens about God that we know from Scripture is that he is NOT capable of being tempted (James 1:13).
Therefore if Jesus is God, then Satan has got be a total moron. Trying to tempt God (who cannot be tempted) would be a total waste of time. And I for one don’t think that if Satan is capable of deceiving the entire world (Rev 12:9), he would be stupid enough to even try to tempt God Himself. Therefore if Satan really did tempt Jesus (and that’s what our Bibles tell us) then it would seem to me that ol’ “serpent of old” knows something the trinitarians don’t know.
And Satan is NOT the only one that knows that Jesus isn’t God or part of any trinity. Demons also know this. In Jesus’ many encounters with various demons, the demons knew who Jesus was – they identified him as the Messiah and called him the Son of God. But they never once made any indication that he was literally God Himself in the flesh!
The following to-the-point article by a Monotheistic Messianic by the name of Bruce Barham goes into a little more detail on this point. I’ll post it here. But you can also read it (and other deconstructions of the trinity) on Bruce’s site – TorahofMessiah.com. Just look in his “Messiah is NOT God” section – here.
(Note – formatting details come from copying his html.)
Demons “Believe in” Messiah Better than Most Christians!
Proof from examples of casting out of demons that Messiah is NOT God.
The following is a brief example proving that Satan and his demonic armies know God and Messiah FAR better than most Christians and counterfeit Messianics. Furthermore, those emissaries of evil know, unlike traditional Christians and Messianics, that Messiah is definitely not “God in the flesh.:
Mt 8:29
29And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Yeshua, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? Parallels among the many – Mark 1:24, Mark 3:11, Mark 5:7, Luke 4:34, Luke 4:41, Luke 8:28
Mark 1:24 – 24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Yeshua of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.
Mark 3:11 – 11 And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.
Mark 5:7 – 7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Yeshua, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.
Luke 4:34 – 34 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Yeshua of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.
Luke 4:41 – 41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Messiah the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.
Luke 8:28 – 28 When he saw Yeshua, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Yeshua, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not. The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.
VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTICE!
The Demons all knew exactly who Yeshua was, and they never addressed him as God or even hint that Yeshua is God (Elohim). They ALL recognized Yeshua as the SON of God – not God the Son! There is not one single solitary example of the many recorded examples of Yeshua’s casting out of demons where the demons ever even hinted that he is God! NOT ONE! Using the King James Version above they addressed him as:
- The Holy One of God
- The Son of God
- The Son of the Most High God
- The Messiah (Christ)
- The Son of God Most High
As a matter of fact, in Mark 5:7 the demon actually appeals to Yeshua in the name of God, which again infers clear distinction between God and Yeshua!
Now, PULEESE! (Southern for please) Don’t you think the demons knew who Yeshua was? Do Christian and counterfeit Messianic theologians want us to believe the demons were simply unaware of the Trinity or didn’t know Yeshua was God? Obviously, unless one has an extremely fanciful imagination, one must admit that the demons gave no indication whatsoever that they considered Yeshua to be God. They certainly did realize he was the Messiah and the Son of God, but they did not show the slightest indication that they considered him to be God. Their reasons were simple, because the demons – UNLIKE traditional Christians and counterfeit Messianics – knew Yeshua is not “God in the flesh”!
Therefore, demons know more than [mainstream] Christian leaders. They believe in and know the true Messiah and true God far better than pastors in [most of] today’s churches and self anointed Messianic rabbis in today’s Messianic synagogues.
This is actually an argument Trinitarians can use in favor of the Trinity. They can now point out that “see, it is the demons who did not believe in it; not accepting the Trinity is a demonical denial”.
Usually when one tries to prove something, an appeal to authorities accepted by the other party is made. The appeal to the demons will not work
It seems to me that many trinitarians get around the matter that
of the Godhead, only Jesus could be tempted, and that because he
“emptied himself” of his divinity or something like that, as he was
a man in the days of his flesh here upon earth.
I think it’s their way of saying that Jesus is and is not exactly as
God.
Some say Jesus is the Godhead, some say God is the Godhead,
some say both Jesus and God are a part of the Godhead along with
the holy spirit.
When I look up the word “Godhead” in my dictionary, it says: “God”.
I guess I will go with what my dictionary says. I believe God is the
head over all, that there is one God and he is the Father of Jesus
Christ and all those that belong to Christ.
I suppose some will say that Jesus is included in the Godhead. I suppose I can say that I am included in Christ, that I am a part of
him. As I can accept that I am a part of Christ, then it seems to me
that I should also accept that Jesus is a part of God, if for no other
reason than he is his only begotten Son.
I suppose Joseph was a part of the “Pharaohead” when he was put in charge by Pharaoh, if there is such a thing as a “Pharaohead”.
The fullness of God dwells in Jesus, and I suppose that also means
God’s holy angels and such. I wonder if they are a part of the Godhead. Maybe they are. I believe they are under Jesus.
What about “Kingship”? It seems like a similar kind of word.
If “emptied himself of his divinity”, is the same as ” humbled himself and took upon himself the form of a servant”, I suppose
I could go along with that, but isn’t it so that so often when we
accept a slight curve, we can later on get so far off the path of life
and become entangled?
Maybe it’s a doctrine of false apostles.
Ever notice how we get our feet all tangled up when we get going
on this path?
I should never have followed along.
I believe Jesus is the Son of God, that God is one, that the Godhead is God and whatever and whoever else he wants in the
Godhead with him.
I know there is a distinction between Jesus and God and that there
will be times when all distinction is lost, and I won’t be able to tell
the difference. I think of a distinction as a difference without any
differences.
There is a sense in which Jesus is God, for he is as God is.
There is a sense in which Jesus is the name of God, for the character of both is the same.
I want to stick to the word as best I can. I don’t have to talk like
others talk. I don’t have to teach, or encourage what they teach.
I don’t have to be like them. I’m supposed to be me, the way God
wants me to be, and it’s not always easy.
Let’s all try to be the best we can be for God. We don’t have to let
others put us into their kind of mold.
I think it’s OK to say at times, “I don’t NECESSARILY agree with your statement, and then give them something good from the scriptures. I suppose it could be in your own words, but don’t expect them to NECESSARILY agree with it.
Jesus never told his disciples to go make trinitarians of of all nations, or go make this or that out of them either, though he did
tell them to disciple.
Now I have a question.
Is it possible that when we are with Jesus in heaven, having no part of the flesh, that we will not be able to be tempted?
Wouldn’t that be something if that were so?
Some things I just don’t know. Just the hope of such a thing causes
me want to continue on. Could it be a false hope? I just don’t know.
No, it is not possible, because we will never be with Jesus in heaven without flesh.
As for whether we will be unable to be tempted in our new bodies in the Kingdom on earth, that’s another question. Either way, what does that have to do with the subject of the blog?
As our new clothing will not be earthly but celestial, we should have
no need to eat earthly bread. The temptation which comes from earthly hunger for physical bread should not be a trouble to us, I
suspect, yet even angels in heaven fell away from God.
Maybe I will never be free from temptation, yet being kept from it
by God is my hope.
Jesus came from his heavenly home to this earth and overcame, and so my hope is in him.
I hope to be in the place where no tempter is at, and though there
be another time or place where I should be, if the will of God be so,
I do hope to be kept by him who knew no sin.
For me, it won’t be by believing in the Trinity that I will be saved, but by believing in God and Jesus his Son.
I think the appeal to what the demons believe does “work.” James 2:19 tells us that the demons believe in one God and tremble. The text is telling us that for us to believe in one God (like the demons) is well or good.
In short, if the demons belief in one God is true, and they do not believe Yeshua to be the one God (as the passages in the post above teach), then their belief in who Yeshua is must also be true.
Matthew
Matthew, I’m right there with you on that.
Sorry JohnE, I totally disagree. The only authority being appealed to is the authority of Scripture. And if a trinitarian attempted to say that demons can never be trusted and therefore the demons that Jesus encountered were lying/denying/hiding the trinity, that would simply be an argument from silence. There’s nothing to indicate that that the demons weren’t telling truth and if they were it would be misleading of Scripture to not clearly indicate that fact (which Scripture does not).
Instead we get a repeated sense from Jesus’ dealings with the demons that these “unclean spirits” absolutely feared and respected him. The demons knew instantly upon seeing Jesus that he was the Messiah and they were scared of him. They knew God’s Messiah would one day come and destroy them and were afraid that Jesus was going to do exactly that – one even asked if Jesus was going to do it then, “before the time” (Matt 8:29). I find it implausible that demons who were terrified of Jesus and his power would be saying false things to him or pulling any “demonical denial” business. And I find it even more implausible that Scripture would not clue us into the fact that something was “amiss” with what the demons said or how they acted towards Jesus.
It’s pointless to speculate about what a Trinitarian “would” say about this. Has anyone actually encountered a Trinitarian that referred to what the demons said? If so, how was it handled?
It’s as if men took many things that the Bible says about who God
is, who Jesus is, and some things about the Comforter, the spirit of
truth, and arranged them into their own way of talking about God
and his dominion, and from their own perspective, developed a view with the help of some of the great philosophical minds of their
time, and came up with the Trinity doctrine, and by a show of hands
proclaimed that such is true and the accepted form of the Church, and therefore all must accept it as true in order to be accepted by
the Church.
That’s about what happened isn’t it? And a few men may have objected while the show of hands in the majority gave ‘reason’ to
the majority to go ahead without the agreement of the few, while
God may have been working there in the meeting through the few
who were not in agreement.
I believe God likes concensus. Does any Christian not believe Jesus
is the Son of God? I don’t think so. On that we have consensus. Those things on where we have consensus, we should find the truth and the will of God.
For a Church group to go on without consensus is not wise in my
opinion. When there is disagreement, the reason should be made.
If God is working through one who is in disagreement with the rest
of the group, what he says should make sense to the group if they
are willing to hear.
A Church group may at times have consensus and yet not have the
mind or will of the Lord, though I trust God may have been working
with someone or more than just one, in the group but they have not been willing to speak up, and may have simply gone ahead not
being fully pursuaded in his mind and heart, in effect “followed the
crowd”.
If there are a few that have wrong ideas, or are standing on wrong
ground, or are promoting wrong doctrine, a false premises, or an outright lie, then what should happen is that they should see God
work though the spiritual gifts within that Church group which would counter the darkness and overcome any of the argument with the light which comes from God, and it may be a process. It
may take time.
If the group is carnal, the group may come up with wrong conclusions, go in wrong directions and do wrong things, not holding Christ as the head.
I do not believe the institution of the Trinity doctrine was the will
of God. I do not believe it to be the standard God wants for the acceptance of an individual, though God may permit it because he
has given men authority even while at times they use it wrongly.
Sometimes the righteous suffer. Sometimes we have to bear our
cross.
DISCLAIMER: The following is written concerning the religious systems of this wicked world, not individuals. Recorded for revelation, not condemnation, in hopes there would be those who would “see” and “hear”, for all who do so will take heed unto The Call of The Only True G-D and “Come out of her, MY people”…….
“The Way of Truth is evil spoken of” because of pagan “catholicism” and her harlot pagan “christian” daughters ;-(
Their “imag”ined “jesus christ” is not The Messiah! It was some five hundred years ago that they named one head of their three-headed pagan “god”, “jesus”, during a time that has been called the “reformation”. Prior to that time there was no “j” sound in the english language…….period…….
And the pagan “christian” name of ‘jesus’ is the transliteration of The Messiah’s G-D given Hebrew birth name from the pagan catholic latin word ‘iesus’ not the pagan greek word ‘iesous’ which is recorded in all the greek transcripts from which religious “biblical” translations were made…….
And the “reformation”, the time during which the english ‘j’ sound was “imag”ined, was an aptly named time! For it was a time when “catholicism” birthed her harlot “christian” daughters ;-( Her “christian” daughters are of her substance ;-( Her substance was merely “reformed” so that her “christian” daughters might appear a bit differently outwardly, yet inwardly they remained liken unto their pagan harlot mother ;-(
“christianity” is but the byproduct of the fornicative relationship pagan “catholicism” has always had with “the god of this world”, he who is “the father of lies”, he who is “the angel of light”, “d”evil spirit that rules over this wicked world ;-(
All religious systems, muslin, jewish, buddhist, catholic, christian ,,etc,, are Anti-Messiah!
Religious systems of this world, all alike they are,
Those they clone have fought, killed and died, both near and far ;-(
And then once a week, or multiple times a day they may pray,
Yet as hypocrites they begin each new day ;-(
Days that are filled with deceit and lies,
For in a “religious system” Truth can not abide ;-(
And so the fruit of death is born of religion’s way,
Because life is but a pawn in the wicked game they play ;-(
Simply, Faith will not create a system of religion!
The Messiah testified of a “wicked world”, and of His disciples being “in, not of, this world”.
John exhorted those who believed “to love not the world or it’s things” for “the WHOLE world is under the control of the evil one”!
And James testified, “whoever is a friend of this world is the enemy of G-D(Father, Great Spirit, Creator,,)”!
And “the god of this world”, “the father of lies”, “d”evil, is the author of all religious systems and has his way with those who are “of this world” because they follow their own “vain “imag”inations” ;-( And so it is that mankind’s “imag”ination is destroying and perverting Creation ;-(
And Our Father(Creator) has promised that HE “will destroy those who are destroying and perverting HIS Creation(earth, air, water, vegetation, creatures, Light, Truth, Life, Love, Peace, .etc.)”!
Hope is there would be those who take heed unto The Only True G-D’s Call to “Come out of her, MY people”!
All who take heed unto The Only True G-D’s Call will exit “the broadway to destruction” and they will follow The Messiah on “The Way to The Truth of The Life”! They no longer will have their portion with the “catholic/christian” LIE or any other religious system of this world.
The Messiah testified, “whoever lives and believes in Me(His Teachings and Life example) shall never die.”
And then The Messiah questioned, “Do you believe this?” YES!
And you? Do you believe? Or do you believe in death?
If you believe in death, while there is breath(spirit) there is hope!
For Miracles Do Happen! Thanks Be To “Our Father(Creator)”!
Hope is that there would be those who “come out” of the “strong delusion” that is the religious systems of this wicked world, for “the WHOLE world is under the control of the evil one”.
Hope is that there would be those who believe in and receive of The Life. Hope is that there would be those who would “experience The Messiah and The Power(The Holy, Set Apart, Great Spirit) that raised Him from among the dead”.
Hope is you will, or have experienced The Miracle that is “receiving a love of The Truth”, for all who have “received a love of The Truth” will have:
Peace, in spite of the dis-ease(religion) that is of this wicked world, for “the WHOLE world is under the control of the evil one”(1JN5:19) indeed and Truth……. francis
As anybody who had many discussions on Trinity with its adepts can tell you, this line of argument that “see, even the demons believe God is one” will rub the Trinitarians the wrong way, since you just confirmed to them (in their mind) that you really do not have an accurate knowledge about this doctrine, you do not know that they, the Trinitarians, do believe and affirm that God is one (and of course, they understand something different than you do when they say that).
Sticking under their nose the fact that “God is one, see???” will only frustrate them and think you are really ignorant, they already believe that and now they have to educate you. Instead, you have to deal with their wrong understanding of how God is one.
Yeah, WE both know that, but it’s not gonna convince them. Demons simply can’t be appealed to as authority. It’s like calling to the stand a convicted serial killer and pathological liar, and think that everybody must take his statements as true. Why? Why would anyone do that?
They’re demons, remember
? When it comes to them, in most minds, there’s really no presumption of innocence. You don’t need “things” to indicate they’re lying or not telling the whole truth. Their very identity makes them suspicious.
But that’s an argument from silence, isn’t it? I thought these don’t work?
We can find it implausible, but WE are not problem. In my opinion, the appeal to the demons will help in no way. They might even conclude that you are so desperate and out of arguments, that you are left to resort to demon testimony. There’s really no need to appeal to demons. There are plenty of healthy, credible authorities that do a great job of disproving the Trinity.
I heard something today on a CD and it seems to me to concern
the subject of the Trinity in some sense.
The man teaching is a known prophet. I take him as a prophet, though not one that has been without any fault. Prophets are
people and may at times make a mistake. When they become
aware of them I hope they repent publicly if the word they gave
was in public, if they are sure they were wrong. Walking by
the spirit means taking risks.
Here’s what the man said, and I will try to say it as he said it. I
hope I remember what he said correctly. If it isn’t word for word,
I believe I still have the idea of it. So I will tell you what I heard.
He was talking about the temptation of Christ in the wilderness.
Here is what I believe I heard and I will put it in quotes:
“If Jesus would have bowed to Satan, God would have died (and there was a pause. I believe God is over the tongue of his prophets) ..God would have died on earth.”
As I have listened to the man in the past, I concluded that the man
is what I would call a “trinitarian”, but I’m not sure the man himself
would say that about himself. That’s one reason I don’t want to give his name.
I thought about what he said, and thought about Moses when he
was about to part the Red sea. What might have happened if he
would not have done what God told him to do (put his staff over
the waters or whatever it was and part the Red sea) but rather,
(God forbid) that he would have instead, bowed to the approaching
Pharaoh and said some kind of repentance for leaving Egypt in the
manner in which they did?
Wouldn’t that have been the end of Israel and Moses? Maybe a few
of them would have been taken prisoners and they would have been treated at least twice as bad as before. And wouldn’t that be
a light thing compared to all the plages and such upon Egypt? All
this of course is depending on them surviving any immediate wrath
of God, and whatever judgment from that.
In short I think it would have been all over.
If Jesus would have bowed to Satan during his temptation in the
wilderness, wouldn’t everything any of God’s people believed about
him from the scripture, or by testimony have been gone from this
earth? Wouldn’t it mean that all the prophets failed, that all the promises fell short, that for the whole earth, there would be no hope and that in this world there would be no more word of God?
There might be help for some other planet, but this earth would have been lost, that is if Jesus would have been given a second
chance somewhere else. Isn’t that about what a man might conclude?
I found that statement to be of so much interest spiritually.
If Jesus would have failed, God would have died (pause) on this
earth. I think I can hear that.
I have heard the man say in the past, “Jesus is God.”
Could it be that I wasn’t hearing him right? Maybe I still misjudge
the man. I just don’t know.
The man who said this is no prophet. It contradicts what the Scriptures say. First, Jesus isn’t God. Second, God can’t die.
Why do you consider him to be a “known prophet”?
There’s nothing resembling this in Scripture. Why would you even consider it?
I think you were hearing him right. If you start with the assumption that Jesus is God, it would actually be logical to conclude that “if he failed God would die on earth.” But the very preposterous nature of such a conclusion shows how flawed the whole premise is to begin with.
We don’t have to “judge” the man, but we should be able to recognize false teaching when we hear it. Just because he is “known” as a prophet (by whom?) doesn’t mean he is a true prophet of God.
My last post was a hearing test. Maybe it was only a test.
As to the matter that the man I heard “is no prophet”, here is what
one wise said, who listened to Jesus one night:
Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he
doeth? – John 7:51
I wouldn’t judge him before “hearing” him (or reading his words). In fact it’s not my place to judge him at all. But we are expected to discern truth from falsehood. And from what you’ve said I don’t see how he can be speaking for God. A true prophet would not be saying Jesus is God, nor would he be saying “if Jesus failed God would have died on earth.”
Mark,
You say you wouldn’t judge the man though you just did in your
previous post. Are you saying you have repented or are you living
in the town of Justifying?
I believe the man’s teaching is true when I compare it to the word of God and the things of the spirit of God.
I believe I discerned some false hearing. What do you think?
I’m not judging him, I’m just “judging” what he said, by comparing it with Scripture. I don’t suggest he’s a bad man or a deliberate liar, he may just be mistaken, misguided, or even deceived. But if he’s saying things that contradict Scripture, he can’t be a true prophet of God.
Based on what you’ve told me, his teaching isn’t true based on the Word of God. The Word obviously doesn’t say Jesus is God, and certainly doesn’t hint at anything like “God would have died on earth.”
What do you mean by “discerning some false hearing”?
Mark,
Are you saying that though you did judge the man for what he said,
saying that he is not a prophet because of what he said, now you
are taking a different path and are simply judging WHAT he said
according to how it sounds by your hearing?
When we say someone is this or that or is not this or that because
of something they said, we then have judged the person and not only what they have said.
I have judged your hearing of what the man said to have been
faulty. Would you like me to explain that to you? Would you like
me to give account of that determination?
No, I’m not saying I’m taking a different path. I was trying to clarify what I said originally. Sorry if it was unclear. I never meant to imply that I was judging the man, just the validity of his words, and the validity of whether he is a prophet.
That’s not how I intended it, and I’m sorry I gave you the impression I was judging the person. Like I said, I don’t know anything about him, except the two things you told me he has said. Based on that, I consider his words to be not in harmony with the Scriptures.
Logically, can a man who teaches something that contradicts the Scriptures be a true prophet of God? That seems to be a contradiction in terms, since a prophet is supposed to be someone who speaks directly for God. But simply saying he’s not a prophet was not meant to be a judgment of him, just of his words, since I don’t know him.
Sure. All I had to go by is the two statements you told me about. If I misunderstood, then by all means, explain it.
Mark,
I think I hear you saying that you did not judge the man by saying
that he couldn’t be a prophet because of what he said. You simply
are trying to clarify what you said and that you did not mean to imply that you were judging the man, but rather were judging the validity of his words.
I think I have represented what you claim to have been saying,
but I think you have misjudged yourself.
I believe you did judge the man when you said that he could not
be a prophet because of what he said, but that you are unwilling
to admit it.
I also believe that you only heard something the man said in the manner in which
you wanted to interpret what he said, and I also believe that your
hearing was faulty.
I’d like to share an example of hearing, this one from The Pilgrim’s
Progress.
It’s about the praise of Christian who after his victory over Apollyon, gave acknowledgement to the Devil by one of the names
Satan goes by in Scripture, in recognition of him as the leader of
this Apollyon. Then he tells of how this battle was “to end his praise”
to one he refered to as “Michael”, who came to his aid and thereby
he was able to use his sword and make Apollyon fly away.
The context of all this is most important to solving this mystery as
to who this Michael is. By the exchange of words between Apollyon
and Christian, I have discerned that it is the Lord Jesus that Christian refers to as Michael.
Michael, according to my concordance means “who is like God”
Some seem to believe that Christian is refering to Michael an angel
of God who goes to battle against these things such as Apollyon,
but I think otherwise because it neither fits the context of Christian’s battle, nor with scripture. It also would corrupt Christian’s praise as then his poetry would be entirely praising an
angel of God rather than Jesus who saved him. It’s also interesting
that his final use of the sword included a verse from the book of
Romans which gives credit to Jesus for saving us from all things that may come against us. That scripture was Romans 8:37. That’s
what Christian used in his final use of the sword.
So it’s a matter of our interpretation, or our hearing of the poetry
of Christian.
Have men been known to interpret according to a way that will
discredit another, and if so, for what reasons of the flesh?
I believe men have been known to do that and also to interpret things in a way that puts another in a bad light, a false light, and
also in a way that violates scripture, while they Say that the other
one was in violation of scripture.
It’s so often a problem with our hearing. It may be because of
some other infirmity of the flesh that shows itself by some symptoms affecting the ear.
I guess we disagree on what the definition of judging someone is. Are we not supposed to discern truth from falsehood? Are we not supposed to discern whether someone is a prophet of God? We are told to beware of false prophets, so that’s going to have to include determining whether someone is or isn’t one. I make no judgment about the man’s motives, character, or reasons for believing what he does. But as I asked, logically, can a man who teaches something that contradicts the Scriptures be a true prophet of God? That’s all I’m saying.
So, how was it faulty then? Like I said, I didn’t have much to go on. You told me he had said “Jesus is God” and that if Jesus had failed, “God would have died on earth”? How many ways are there to interpret that?
Mark,
I believe the difference between judging a man can be seen by
what we say.
One of these two statements will show a man being judged and
the other will show that what he has said is being judged. Can you tell which one is which?
1. The man is found to be not sound by what he said.
2. What the man said is not sound.
It’s one thing to say that a man said something that was not correct or sound, and another to say the man is something less than the gift he may very well be.
One statement judges the man and the other the thing that was
said. I do believe there is a time to judge a man. When the judgment is correct why should the man be offended? Shouldn’t he
rather repent? But if the judgment is incorrect, the one who judges
defiles himself.
You made a judgment as to the man’s gift, saying that by what he
said he could not be a prophet. You will have to be the judge as to
whether or not it was a judgment as to his character.
Mark, you did not ask if such a man could be a prophet if he teaches something contrary to scripture, unless you asked it to
yourself. You did make the statement that the man could not be
a prophet based upon what you heard that he said.
I believe prophets can still be prophets even if they make mistakes.
If a prophet is true, he is a true prophet. If he is lying and deceiving, couldn’t he a false prophet?
Let’s look at the statement “If Jesus would have bowed to Satan
during his temptation in the wilderness, then (pause) God Would
Have Died On Earth.”
I took the liberty to give some emphasis to some of the words.
Because Jesus is the Word Of God, if he would have fallen in the wilderness during his temptation, could it not have been as those
who died in the wilderness and did not enter the land promised?
Let’s consider what the consequences of Jesus falling into the hands of Satan could be. Wouldn’t it be as if all that was prophesied of him came to be not so, that no one then could have
faith in the scriptures of old, in effect, the Word would be dead on
this earth, and God is compared to the Word by John isn’t he, for
as Jesus is, so is God in so many ways.
So can you hear that in so many ways, all that is of God to us, his
grace, the faith of God, the life promised, the hope, all these things
and more that are of God and can only be received of God, all these
things would have been dead, to no profit, IF Jesus would have
fallen to Satan during his temptation and joined Satan’s plans, therefore in effect, God Would Have Been Dead On This Earth?
Can you hear that? I believe I can and that so many others can also. But, let every man decide for himself. There are different ways
to hear things.
I really don’t think I needed to explain this to you, for you to know
these things, Mark. I think you already knew them.
There’s a clue that I didn’t mention that also leads me to believe that Christian was refering to Jesus as Michael (who is like God) in his poetry which he made just after his victory over Apollyon.
That clue is this, he called Michael the ‘blessed’ Michael.
There are many such clues.
I agree. But in the context of whether or not a man is a prophet of God, I think a certain amount of discernment is required of us.
If we are expected to beware of false prophets, then there must be a way of determining whether someone is a true prophet or not. I believe a major way of determining that is to compare his overall message with that of the Scriptures.
Actually, I did. In post #21.
I’m not talking about making mistakes. I’m talking about the message that he is speaking to people, which as a prophet is supposed to be directly from God. If his overall message contradicts the Scriptures, then he is not speaking a message directly from God and therefore is not a prophet.
First, what do you mean by “if he is true”?
Second, if a man is speaking something contrary to Scripture he is not necessarily lying and deceiving. He could just be mistaken or misguided. But it doesn’t change the fact that he is not a prophet.
Let me ask you this. You began by saying the man was “a known prophet” and that you “take him as a prophet.” I would ask, “known to whom?” And why do you take him as a prophet?
Putting it that way kind of makes sense, in a figurative way – Everything of God would have been “dead” in the sense of “to no profit.” But the wording you originally quoted was “God would have died on earth” which to me sounds like a very different thing. It’s at best misleading. And taken within the scope of his belief that Jesus is God, has very different connotations in my mind. I said in a previous post:
Yes Mark you did ask the question, “Logically, can a man who teaches something that contradicts the scripture be a true prophet
of God?” You did this in post 21 as you say, however my point was
that at the time you made the judgment against the man saying that he could not be a prophet of God based on what he said, at
that time you did not ask the question that you did in post 21.
You can not justify a sin by saying that afterward you said something contrary to what you first said. That doesn’t justify a man of his sin.
It’s like the man that uses a profane word and it’s caught on tape
and then he catches himself, and tells the people who run the audio, “Fix the tape.” I said “______”, not “______”, and they
do as he says and “fix” the tape. Then the next day he tells everyone that no one has ever heard him use profanity, and that
all of his friends know he doesn’t lie, and anyone who questions
him on that, he lies to them and tells them to listen to the tape as if that justifies him. It doesn’t, and he’s adding deception to his list
of sins.
Sometimes people will ask a man such a question about if he did
or did not do something so they can find out if he is to be trusted.
People in spiritual leadership postions need to gain the people’s
trust by walking in the light of the gospel of Christ at times, as no
other way will do for what is right.
You ask me, “What do you mean by “if he is true”? I can mean a lot of things by “true” depending on the situation. If a prophet is
walking in falsehood, at such a time, I do not believe anyone has
to consider him a true prophet. At such a time I do not believe God
requires us to follow him.
Mark, What do you think I mean by falsehood? What kind of things
do you think I could be talking about?
The man you ask me about is known to thousands of people as a
prophet. I do not have the names of all these people, though I know a few of them. I see no need to give you these names.
I take him as a prophet, that is to say that I have discerned that
he walks in a prophetic gift and that it is his calling of God to do so
and that I have trusted my discernment on this by some proofs that
the word of God lives and dwells in him and that God is over his
tongue. I gave you an example of this through this discussion. The
man has also often spoke of things coming in the future and has been correct. He tells of things the church needs to know and some of what is going on in the church and he’s been correct. It’s
like the old saying, “If it looks like a dog, and it smells like a dog,
and it barks like a dog, it likely is a dog.”
When the man said “If Jesus would have bowed to Satan in his
temptation, (pause) God Would Be Dead, On Earth.” I believe that
he was comparing God, the Word, to True Religion, that which is
undefiled. It also includes much more than that. There is so much
in that statement to consider.
There’s a certain sound to the prophetic word. Each prophetic voice
will have it’s own unique sound, much as Christian in The Pilgrim’s
Progress had his. He had his own unique sound. All of his poetry
in the book as well as what and how he says things shows a unique sound.
I believe it’s important for us to learn to hear such sounds, and to
try to hear them accurately. This takes effort and disipline on our
part. It also takes faith. It takes walking in wisdom. It may require
a lot of us at times. This is of the Lord’s doing, is it not? And isn’t it to prepare us for his work on this earth and to prepare us for all
eternity? That is some of the work of a prophetic ministry.
The writing in post 27 of yours shows what I have written in different type. It’s a lighter type, but in the last set of lighter type,
those are not my words. Was that meant to be misleading?
The manner in which you hear his voice, through what I have told
you of what he said is as you say, “at best misleading.”
I suggest that you repent of your sins as they become known to you. I would not hurt you a bit to admit any fault that you see by
typing it on this blog, for when we confess our faults to one another we often times are healed.
If your point was the statement I made at first, then why didn’t you just say that? What you said was, “You did not ask if such a man could be a prophet if he teaches something contrary to scripture.” I pointed out where I did. I’m not justifying anything. I just said what I said. Comparing it with somebody fixing a tape to cover up something is a bit much, in this case.
I believe that someone who teaches things contrary to the Bible is not a prophet of God. He may be a good man, he may mean well, he may even have had God show him things that came true. God works with other people besides just prophets. But a prophet in the Bible is a very specific office, involving someone who speaks for God in a very specific manner. And a prophet of God will not contradict Scripture. He has to do more than just “sound like a prophet.”
The last set of lighter type in post #27 was, as I introduced it, a quote from my earlier post. It was not meant to be misleading. It was preceded by the words “I said in a previous post:”
I have indeed admitted when I was at fault, but in this case I don’t think anybody was at fault. You brought up the words of this man and I expressed what I believe. I don’t think there’s any profit in getting into accusations and “calling for repentance.” Let’s just stick to the issues.
How would you connect the statement of the man you brought up with the subject of this thread, which was that the fact that demons called Jesus the Son of God and not God?
That last bit should have said:
How would you connect the statement of the man you brought up with the subject of this thread, which was the fact that demons called Jesus the Son of God and not God?
Mark,
Your walking under spirits of deception, self-justification, self-righteousness, pride, and the spirit of religion. It’s because you
don’t want to repent of your sins and be covered by the blood of
Jesus. You are now being used by the enemy and it will show it’s
corrupt fruit in your life because that is the way you have chosen
to walk.
To get free you must repent of your sins as God reveals them to you.
Because I said that somebody who contradicts the Scriptures is not a prophet of God, I’m “walking under spirits of deception, self-justification, self-righteousness, pride, and the spirit of religion” and “being used by the enemy”??!!!
I certainly repent of my sins as God reveals them to me, not you.
Well, there’s another thread derailed. Have a good night.
Hi Ray,
you are doing your utmost to avoid telling us which prophet you are talking about
Nobody was asking you about the names of all the people who think that the an in question is a prophet .. I now ask you rather plainly: “Who is this prophet? What is his/her name?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi Ray,
perhaps you ought to consider yourself first before calling on others to repent of their (supposed) sins … Your above contributions addressed to Mark C in which you accuse him of sin and being “walking under spirits of deceptions, self-justification, self-righteousness. pride, and the spirit of religion” actually fits how you portray yourself here rather well …
Just an observance from an objective outside point of view …
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Mark,
When somebody says, that somebody who contradicts the scriptures is not a prophet of God, that does not mean he’s walking
under the use of evil spirits.
It’s when a man judges another man by what he heard the man say, and judges him wrongly, using what the man said, hearing
wrongly what the man said, and using that as a basis for judging
him wrongly saying that he therefore is not a prophet of God, and
then doesn’t acknowledge his error but continues to try to convice
others that he hasn’t made the error, that he begins to walk under
lying spirits, deception and such.
It’s like the man who uses a profane word on a tape during a live
presentation while it is being taped, and then says, “Fix the tape”.
I said”____” not “____”. , then a while later tells the group that
everyone knows him and that he never uses profanity, and that
all who know him know he doesn’t lie, and a man comes to him and
asks him if he used the profane word or not, and the man denies
the truth and says, “Get the tape”.
The tape neither shows the truth of the matter, nor does it justify
him of his sins, which in this case is using corrupt language and
the addition of lying.
If we ask such a man, “Why don’t you simply repent?” and he says
“I did. Get the tape”. , the man still has unrepented sin, and there
is good reason for another to not trust him, and if he continues in
any attempts to continue to deceive everyone that heard him use a profane word, into thinking that the listener is deceived, then
he is walking further into the camp of the enemy to be used further by him, using deception to add to the list of sins.
All these sins can be avoided through repentance and also the division they cause, by the grace of God given to us by Jesus Christ.
If a man walks that way, another may come to the place where he
determines that the only meal he can eat with him is holy communion, which may not come up very often, and lasts only a short time.
Wolfgang,
I may continue to do my best to avoid telling you which prophet
I was talking about because I don’t see that you have a need to
know. I think it best to let each man decide for himself which prophet is a prophet. I believe it to be best for each man to decide
for himself if a man is what he says he is.
I have no interest in promoting any prophet by trying to convince
anyone that such a one is indeed a prophet, though I believe those gifts
are important for the Church. Yet, I might acknowledge such a
one as a prophet in my opinion, if it will serve a godly purpose, as
when it may be important to the context of teaching something.
That’s all I was doing, and yet you’ve accused me of judging, denying my “sins” and now lying and using corrupt language, not to mention “walking under spirits of deceptions, self-justification, self-righteousness pride, and the spirit of religion.” I did not do anything to deny or cover up. What I said is still there for anyone to read.
How ironic that you accused me of judging and yet have now passed far worse judgments on me. What is the profit of going into all of this? If you have anything constructive to add to the discussion, by all means do. But if all you’re going to do is throw accusations and judgments at me and twist my words around, it accomplishes nothing but causing more division. Haven’t we seen enough of that here?
Again I ask, how is any of this important to the context of the demons who didn’t believe Jesus is God (the long-lost subject of this thread)?
Mark,
You didn’t just decide for yourself if a man was a prophet or not,
though you did do that. On that point we both agree.
In additon to what you did in that was judge him wrongly saying
that the man could not be a prophet according to what you heard
me say of what he said.
Go back and read what you said, or would you rather that I put it
before you again? If you need my help on this, I am here for you.
If you refuse to hear, there will be no benefit for you.
I never denied that I said that. But why is that such a sin, if we agree that a man should decide for himself? There are many people who have been called prophets; what better way is there of determining whether they really are or not, than to compare their message with the message of Scripture?
As for having “heard him wrongly” – you yourself said you weren’t sure if you heard him correctly. (Post #12 – “Could it be that I wasn’t hearing him right? Maybe I still misjudge the man. I just don’t know.”) I expressed my view based on the words taken at face value, while you later went on to give his words a figurative meaning. (Post #25 “all that is of God to us … all these things would have been dead, to no profit.”)
I responded to that by saying, “Putting it that way kind of makes sense, in a figurative way – Everything of God would have been “dead” in the sense of “to no profit.” But the wording you originally quoted was “God would have died on earth” which to me sounds like a very different thing. It’s at best misleading. And taken within the scope of his belief that Jesus is God, has very different connotations in my mind.”
This is my understanding based on the normal use of language. Most people hearing his words would have understood it that way. Was your figurative interpretation based on how the man himself went on to interpret it, or was it how you interpreted it yourself? If it was his interpretation, you never said so. And if it is yours, how do you know it’s right and mine is wrong? Mine at least fits with the normal meaning of his words. “God would have died on earth” (his actual words according to your original post) is a lot different from “Everything of God would have been dead, to no profit.”
Even in the figurative understanding, if Jesus had failed and everything was, as you described it, “as if all that was prophesied of him came to be not so, that no one then could have faith in the scriptures of old,” it would still be misleading to express that as “God would have died on earth.” If everything of God became of no profit on earth, God would still be alive. Taking his words at face value as I did actually fits more with the Trinitarian belief that Jesus was God, and at one point God died, which is one of the major problems with Trinitarianism.
I’ve said it twice already, but I guess it bears repeating. “If you start with the assumption that Jesus is God, it would actually be logical to conclude that ‘if he failed God would die on earth.’ But the very preposterous nature of such a conclusion shows how flawed the whole premise is to begin with.” Can you hear that?
Based on this understanding, compared with what the Bible says, I can’t believe that someone who teaches this could be a true prophet of God, for there is not a hint of such things in the Bible. But as you say, everyone should be able to make up their own minds, so your accusations of “sins” were unfounded and uncalled for.
And I have to repeat myself yet again, maybe you could actually answer it this time. “Again I ask, how is any of this important to the context of the demons who didn’t believe Jesus is God (the long-lost subject of this thread)?”
Mark,
Again I say it’s not the use of the man’s words in this that is misleading, it’s your hearing of the words that is misleading you.
It’s your interpretation that is misleading you to come to a wrong
conclusion about the man whom you have never met, nor heard
from yourself.
To say about a man, “Because he said (this or that) he therefore
can not be (this or that), is to judge a man by his words.”
We will be judged by our words. There is a time to judge a man by
his words. We should be looking at our words and the words of others to determine if a thing is right or not.
I truely may have misjudged the man when I heard him say “Jesus
is God”, years ago. I admit I might not have heard him right, and
by determining that he’s a trinitarian might not be right, which is
why I said that I wasn’t sure if he would agree with that.
I’ve heard people say that there’s a trinity doctrine and then there’s a trinity doctrine, one of them is OK and the other is not.
That came up on a radio talk program but we didn’t get around to
hearing what the difference was. I wish we would have. I don’t know if there is such a thing or not. Maybe the difference is in the
way that words are used, or maybe it’s in the way that we hear
them.
And again I say, it was my understanding based on the normal use of language. Most people hearing those words would have understood it that way. You didn’t answer – was your figurative interpretation your own, or was it how he himself interpreted what he said?
And again I also say, if Jesus had failed and everything of God became of no profit on earth, God would still be alive. So it still sounds unbiblical to speak of God dying on earth.
And again I say, again – What does any of this have to do with the demons who called Jesus the Son of God and not God? ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that you are now saying you’re not sure if he’s a Trinitarian! Why are we even discussing this?
Mark,
I trust God will be there for you if you need him.
I’m sure He will.
But can you answer any of the questions I asked you? Let me remind you what they were:
1. Was the figurative interpretation of the man’s words yours or his?
2. What does any of this have to do with the subject of this thread?
3. Why are we discussing this? – Or perhaps a better way to say it would be, What was your purpose for bringing up this man and his words in the first place?
well Ray i see you met the true Mark
Ray If satan would of succeeded in tempting Jesus ,then Jesuus would of Died because he did not believe that he was going to rule all of the world as His God had already told Him. there is nothing under the sun that God doesnt have control of, If satan tempted Jesus is was because God deluded satan to believe He could. there has ever been a time when God couldnt Do away with satan but he is what God test us by, all that take the temptation of satan are not worthy of Gods Love.
with Adam God Knew before hand that He would fall to temptation , with Jesus he knew that Jesus would not be tempted. Adam and Jesus both had the promise to be ruler of the kingdom, but only Jesus chose that promise.
the only way to prove a true prophet is when what he says come to pass, so it is easy to fall prey to a false prophet without the word of God as your staff to hold you up
unfortunely Mark is right here, his methods are just wrong and his ego just brings out the worst in people.
Mark,
As to the matter of the interpretation of the man’s words, I believe
we were both thinking along the very Same lines, though when each of our lines would have been written out, though his and mine
be different, I expect there to be no disagreement, for such is often
the case with brotherhood in the kingdom of heaven.
In answer to your question number to, what does What have to do with any of what? Please be specific in order to expect a godly
answer.
I brought up the man and his words because they helped lead me
into some things of the kingdom of heaven, and I enjoy sharing these things for the benefit of the strangers here upon earth.
Robert,
I wonder what the false Mark looks like. Have you seen him?
I do not believe God deluded Satan as you suggest.
I believe Jesus was tempted.
As far as those who take the temptation of Satan as being not worthy of his love, I believe we all are loved and it’s because of God’s nature. I believe he loves Satan just as much as he does me.
Are you saying that those who sin against God realize that they are not
worthy of his love, and then find they are at the place where they should be, that they are beginning to understand the way things really are?
The test I use to see if a prophet is true isn’t only if what he says comes
to pass. I use a other tests. I look to see if he is walking in the truth, being real and honest. If he is walking in craftiness and lies,
he is not being true.
Any prophet can make a mistake in giving a word, and I suppose
then we can say his is not in the truth at that time. At that time,
was he a false prophet, or just a prophet who made a mistake?
Here’s a verse I read today that came to life more than the rest that I read on that page, for me.
Romans 12:6
Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us,
whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of
faith;
And I remember that whatever is not of faith is sin. So a prophet
may sin at times when he gives a word if he is walking beyond his proportion of faith.
When a prophet ministers to people he needs to walk by faith and
sometimes the needs of the people require that someone push their faith, or at least exercise the faith that they have. We should
all learn to do that for one another.
Some of their words need time to come to pass. Some of their words will come to
pass in a small measure when we might think they were going to
come to pass in a large portion. A lot of it is up to the faith of others
and what they do with the word they are given.
What if a prophet says to someone, “God has healed you.” and
no healing is seen? Maybe God did heal them and we didn’t see
the healing, and something came to them that was not of God and
the healing was lost or stolen? I think that could happen. What if
the prophet stumbled at the word given and the thing did not come to pass? Is he a false prophet or a prophet in training? Maybe
he will fall on his face before God and say, “God, I’m a false prophet. Make me real!” Maybe he was a false prophet and God will make him real some day. Maybe he became real when he repented.
Ray
believe what you believe ,as long as it doesnt effect other people i dont think it should effect me in as for my house.
Robert,
Do you believe that God deluded Satan as you have said?
You’re not one of the devil’s advocates, are you?
I don’t believe God has deceived anyone. I think we tend to deceive ourselves. Maybe Satan did the same.
As for you and your house Robert, will you serve the Lord?
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Yes ray
satan believes he can be God, and God has sent him a strong delusion. why else would he had tempted Jesus and us. How else was he created if not by delusion. God caused him to fall because he created him that way.
of course there are many within this delusion, they are the ones that put anything as an equal to God including His SON
As i said GOD HAS A PURPOSE IN EVERYTHING HE DOES
but as i said believe what you believe
Hi Ray,
you wrote as reply to my question
What a bunch of nonsense ! I see, you are now the judge to tell me what I have a need or no need to know …
I wasn’t asking to be convinced of anything …
I was simply asking for the name of the person to which you were referring … or were you not even talking about a real person and only made comments about a person in the fiction of your own imagination?
Now, if both you and someone else know who you are talking about in such secretive manner here, and if you refuse to at least have the common courtesy to inform someone else her on the blog who is asking for clarification, then you ought to have a private e-mail exchange instead of writing on a public platform and denying others clarification which they requested …
Wolfgang,
I am not telling you specificaly what you need, or need not to know. You have no authority over me to tell me what I have to tell
you. God never gave you that power over me. You are not to tell
me that I have to tell you anything you want to know that I know.
Who do you think you are to tell me that I have
to tell you whatever I may know? And you don’t think you’re walking in nonsense?
Maybe you should go back to John’s baptism.
Mark 1:4
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of amendment of life, for remission of sins.
Wolfgang,
In saying that I had no interest in promoting any specific prophet,
and have no interest in convincing anyone that any particular man
by name is a prophet, I was not saying that that it is your interest that
I prove to you that such a one is a prophet. Don’t take it personaly.
I do not wish to get into a discussion about whether a certain man
by name is a prophet or not, or whether we can decide if he is a true prophet or a false one. I do not wish to engage in such discussion by name.
It’s up to you and others to convince me that you all are spiritually
mature enough. Wolfgang, you have a long way to go to convince
me that you would not engage in any conversation about the man
that might misrepresent him or damage his reputation.
The burden is on you, not me. Please amend your ways.
Robert,
Though Satan was created for the purposes of God just as we all
are the work of God’s hands, I do not believe that God caused Satan’s
fall. I do not believe that God deluded him as you suggest, for what
does that say about God? I do not believe God deceives any man.
I do not believe God deceived Satan.
Don’t you think Satan did that to himself?
It seems to me that Satan tried to deceive Christ because that is
his nature. He’s out to destroy as Jesus said.
I do not believe Satan was created by delusion as you suggest, but rather by the word of God, in which there is no deception.
I believe we can account Satan’s fall to be that of his own doing,
and expect that he will be held accountable because of his own
actions.
God did create the waster to destroy, but the waster was not a waster till after he fell. I believe God knew he would fall, yet created him anyway for his purposes in Christ Jesus. God knew
man would fall in like manner, yet he gave us a way to be redeemed, by the sacrifice of Jesus his Son, through the faith that is in him.
God loves everyone the same. We can not earn his love. I believe
he loves me as much as any devil. I am only saved by his grace which is in Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour.
All men have fallen, yet who can say “Why did you make me thus?”
We were made that way for his eternal purposes in Christ Jesus.
We were made weak vessels subject to temporary worthlessness,
subject to falling into the desires of the flesh. This flesh is temporary and has no lasting value. God has given us something new in Christ, a hope that does not fall away if we hold on to that
which we have received of him.
Ray,
why are you actually doing exactly what you yell and scream about and what you accuse others of doing to you ??? You are telling others constantly what they should do …. and get all upset when someone asks a question of you … Instead of being paranoid
You have given an advise you may want to adhere to yourself a little more often:
Hi Wolfgang
You have to understand Ray. The reason why he refuses to reveal the identity of this so-called “prophet” is because this would enable you and us to scrutinize this person (you gotta love the Internet), and probably find out some rather embarrassing facts about him/her. Which would probably show how false this prophet is. And Ray simply does not want to give you that opportunity.
Of course, this is pretty ridiculous. The OT and NT writers never hide the identity of the prophets. Why would they? They have nothing to hide. Unlike our friend Ray here.
John ,
It’s important that you understand that the reason I did not give
out the indentity of the prophet in question is that people are likely
to misjudge him, slander him, misuse, and abuse that which has been given to us and to do it by name. Such does not minister righteousness and it causes division by doing the works of evil.
If the works of Satan have been done through him by anything
he has said, or been reported to have said on this blog, those things we may
deal with, if you are spiritually mature enough to handle those things, and we can do it without bringing up the prophet’s name.
Fair enough?
Wolfgang,
Where did I yell and scream and where is it that I do that which
I tell others they should not do? Where have I been paranoid,
and what advice have I given others that I should do more often?
Make your case, if you can. Right now I consider that you have no
spiritual authority in this matter.
The burden is on you to prove your case against me. Make it as clear as you can. I’m not asking for mercy. You don’t have to go easy. If you have a sword, use it for the glory of God.
Just because a man has the truth on one subject and calls himself a prophet doesnt mean he is a true prophet.
there are many false prophets who gain their followers by presenting something very true to gain the trust of their followers while presenting false doctrine that does the work of satan. I am sure that we are all know of herbert armstrong who gained a great following by the basis of one truth to present a false doctrine to the people who trusted him. time has proved him to be a false prophet while there was some truth in him.
satan knows the scriptures and can use them in ways that are pleasing to man yet being partly true they are completey false because the truth requires being whole, while for it to be a lie it only needs to mislead you from the whole by just a small part.
Its not hard to gain a following in todays world.
For example if i was to send of 1500 letters, 500 saying a stock would go down,500 it would go up, 500 it would not change. to 500 i would be right and i keep repeating the process i would finally have a few who would believe anything i told them because i had never been wrong to them. false prophets can work this way too, they seek to be held as god even if their group is small.
Robert,
I believe that there is a sense in which Jesus is equal with God.
Isn’t his righteousness as good as God’s?
Isn’t his name as good as God’s?
Doesn’t he have the power of God?
Isn’t he the power of God?
Yes, there are many false prophets that have gone out into the world as Jesus said, and we need to watch and see if what they
prophecy comes to pass. And we should not follow them which go
off the path of righteousness. We shouldn’t be looking to place anyone up as a god, for we are all members one of another and there is one who is over us, the God of our salvation, Jesus by name, the same as God, who was sent by the Father.
I agree with you Robert that any man who seeks to be held as a god is being false. He’s then been deceived and is yet deceiving himself and then others also isn’t he? We do need to be aware.
I think we have the right to show doctines that go around that are
false, and show why they are wrong and what is wrong with them,
that others are not taken in by those doctrines. This should be more imprortant to us than who the prophet or teacher is by name.
If we are against a thing shouldn’t we go against it, if it is evil,
or are we more against the teacher or prophet than the evil itself?
If we are not willing to go against the evil doctrine, if people are
being taken in by it, but would so much rather get the name of the
teacher or prophet, is it that we thirst for blood, and if so why?
Are there spirits of Jezebel involved, or jealousy, and didn’t God say
“Thou shalt not murder?”
I suppose if there is a teacher or prophet that has been given correction and has not received it time and time again, and his teaching is widespread, there may be justification for giving out his name and warning people of him. The apostle Paul gave names at
times warning the church, for he was doing the work of his calling
in Christ Jesus.
Now, if someone hears of a doctrine through me which I have told
them of and they can prove to me that it is false, and also ask me
of his name or ministry in order that they may send the man some
correction that may restore him, then I believe I would have no
justification to withhold that information.
Likewise if I see a bloodthirst, and they are unable to prove to me
that a word given by such a one is false, I have no obligation to give out his name as far as I can see, for there are two reasons I
see that I need not do so.
Ray
your are right to believe anything or anyone you want and not be judged by people (who on your subject are right though) that dont teach the whole truth. they are no different than the so called prophet that you believe.
as i said believe what you will believe, i will not judge you, i will let God judge you.
Its not like someone might follow you and you might teach false doctrine to others because teaching is not your great calling as it is not mine either.
Now in the town of Fairspeech there was a man called Mr. Anything.
I didn’t get a chance to hear from him, but I wonder what he was
about. I wonder what he would stand on. I wonder if he took a stand on anything, and if he stood for nothing. How can a man
stand for anything and yet for nothing?
In this town of Fairspeech there was also Mr. Bothways. I remember how Mr. ByEnds told of how most of the town were his
relatives, and so it seems they were all related. All this I’ve seen in
The Pilgrim’s Progress.
As I look at Ron’s two opening sentences with a closer view, I’m
not so sure that the two statements some trinitarians make is
so absurd, that is, if by incarnation, they mean that Jesus was
with God in heaven and came into this world through divine conception in the womb of a virgin woman, and if by the term,
“fully God”, they mean that he shares fully with God in a spiritual
sense, with all of God’s character, much like the sense Paul used
when he said that for him to live is Christ. And what if what they
mean by “fully man” is to be interpreted along the lines of his being
tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin?
Then suddenly, it doesn’t sound so absurd. It may still sound strange to our ears, but not so absurd. Maybe some just have a
strange way of saying things, and we just have to learn what they
are saying when they speak.
This doesn’t mean that we are to speak the way they speak, or that we have to, to be saved.
Now, I will also agree that there may be times when we speak to
some who use such language that seems so strange to my ears,
and yet really do not know what they say. It could be that they are
saying something that is completely absurd.
Maybe they don’t know what it is that they say, but there might
be a few who do.
You forgot about Mr Notquiteallthere
welcome to the neighborhood ray.
Is he a relative of Mr ByEnds also ,or is he just a neighbor.
sorry Ray
stuff like this does give people that impression,
It sounds to me as if Mr. Notquiteallthere left something behind.
I wonder what it could be.
I remember going through a section of a larger community, but I don’t recall the name. It was in the land of darkness. I think it was
condemnation. In that section of town there wasn’t anything there
that I could see but that. The people there didn’t seem to venture
out. It as as if that’s the only place they’ve ever known. They seemed to be quite comfortable there and didn’t want to leave,
even though that place too was a part of the city of destruction.
That’s what it was, the city of destruction. It’s in the Pilgrim’s Progress, and it’s larger than all the towns.
As I recall, in that place of condemnation there were people that
strongly disapproved of everything. They seemed impossible to satisfy. There were many convicts there, and if you ask them I think
they would tell you that they never really were convicted of anything much, even though they were taken and put into the disproportionate number of jails they had there. They could be seen connected together like a chain gang, doing some of their community service, seeming to both be doomed, (that is from the perspective of an outsider) and passing sentence on all others as
they acted as if they themselves were fine.
The powers that were in that place would try to seize property
for their public use by eminant domain. First an inspector that often stumbled would arrive and issue a paper, taging the property. The
prisoners would sometimes try to take up residence there. Each prisoner had his own name written on their uniform.
The only food they were given to eat was mostly garbage, even
though there was some good things in it. They had to pick through
it so much that it was considered to be all garbage. Day after day
it was the same thing.
I wonder how can you read these scriptures and not conclude that Jesus is God:
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.He was in the beginning with God.
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.John 1-4
For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.And He is before all things, and in Him all things consistAnd He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father that] in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. colossians 1:15-20
of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. Romans 9:5
looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Chris Titus 2:13
These and many more passages point very clearly the divinity of Christ Jesus. If you guys can not see them, I do not really know what else to say.
PS: all passages taken form NKJV.
Dear Alex,
Welcome to the blog. We are glad to have you. May we all work together to grow closer to God’s revealed truth in the holy Scriptures. For explanations on these texts please click on the links below.
Isaiah 9.6
John 1.1, 14
Colossians 1.15-20
Romans 9.5
Titus 2.13
I would also like to ask you to explain five texts.
1. In John 17.3 Jesus clearly and unequivocally stated that his Father (cf. John 17.1) is the only true God. Furthermore, Jesus excluded himself from “the only true God” by saying “and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” Clearly there are two individuals here: (1) the Father who is the only true God and (2) Jesus Christ who is the one the only true God sent.
2. Mark 12.28-34: Jesus and a non-trinitarian Jewish scribe agree on the definition of God. Yahweh is the only true God and there is no other besides him. Everyone agrees that Jews were non-trinitarian at this time and so if Jesus agrees with this man then Jesus disagrees with the later doctrine of the Trinity.
3. Mark 13.32: Jesus clearly stated that he did not know when he would return (though his Father knew). This is devastating to the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity because Jesus is not omniscient. Even if the dual-natures doctrine (hypostatic union) is invoked it doesn’t help because Jesus only has one mind and that mind should be fully divine and thus fully omniscient.
4. 1 Timothy 6.16: God is immortal, which means he is not able to die. Obviously Jesus died for our sins and therefore he cannot truly be God. Again the dual-natures doesn’t help because it is supposed to be the divinity of Jesus that makes his sacrifice efficacious (otherwise he didn’t need to be God to save us).
5. Deuteronomy 32.39: This text along with thousands more clearly demonstrates that God is a single individual (person) because he says “I” when he speaks. Thus, only the “I” of this text is God, not any others. God does not say “we are they, and there is no god besides us” which is what we should find if the Trinity were present in the Torah. This is not merely a case where progressive revelation can be called in to duct tape the problem; no, in this case we have a clear contradiction to any later formulations that admit to multiple persons in the godhead.
I look forward to your response.
If the Bible ‘implicitly’ states a theological view regarding God, its a “binitarian” one and not a “trinitarian” one.
For example, in recent email correspondence between myself and LW Hurtado [FRSE, Head of the School of Divinity, Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology at New College, University of Edinburgh] writer of “Lord Jesus Christ”, he had this to say regarding his definition of early Christian [binitarian] worship:
“…my own work has focused on the devotional practice of Judaism and early Christianity. Admittedly, this is an area characteristically overlooked by scholars, who all tend to be really theologians and logo-centric in approach, and don’t sufficiently appreciate the crucial importance in the ancient world of cultus as the key defining feature of one’s “religion”…
Jews didn’t die for refusing to sign a
doctrinal statement, nor did Christians. They refused to offer
sacrifice, or partake of pagan sacrifice, or offer incense to the
emperor’s image. It’s worship-practice that defines “monotheism”: specifically, the refusal to offer worship to anyone than the one God…
I have consistently referred to a “binitarian devotional pattern”, emphasizing thed empirical phenomena of religious practices in which two distinguishable figures are given cultic devotion, yet this is still seen as firmly obedience to the one God…
If you don’t like “binitarian” then don’t use it. But
the issue is not the word; it is whether the cultic phenomena that I
have repeatedly listed in publications over 20 yrs were or were not
happening, were or were not unusual and innovative, and were or were not of the sort that were otherwise reserved for deities. I judge the right answer to each is affirmative.–Of course early believers saw this innovation in practice as required by God, and their re-shaped pattern of devotion with Jesus included in this unusual way as right and proper and not a violation of their commitment to one God. I’ve rather consistently maintained this over two decades. So, there’s no disagreement there. But the historical question is whether there is anything remarkable in their
practice, and that is judged empirically by whether it’s typical,
unusual, unparalleled, etc. Again, I judge affirmative.”
Xavier,
By quoting this am I to infer that you believe in worshiping Jesus as God or as one on the same level as God?
Sean, the Hurtado quotation is important I think because in modern scholarly works regarding Christological themes and ideas, I notice an interpreation [preference] towards a binitarian “devotional practice in the early Christian Churches”.
This is not only reflected in Hurtado’s works but others such as Dunn, Wright, Bauckham et al. Their use of “Splitting the Shema” and “christological monotheism” is widely accepted now as a legitimate way to express the early devotional practice of the Jewish-Christian churches from Paul’s [the Apostle] time to late 2nd century AD.
For references and commentary check out my study: http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/2009/03/splitting-shema-how-not-to-guide.html
Xavier,
I am aware of how Hurtado et. al. perceive the early devotion of Christians. However, it was not clear from your comments (#67 or #69) that you also believe this or not. Also, the article you referenced is very hard to follow because quotes are not indented. This is particularly difficult when quotations span multiple paragraphs. Does blogspot allow for blockquotes? The standard html is <blockquote>text</blockquote>
Sean, dont know bro…I did send the study in Word to you [and others] a while back.
My point is, regarding this thread and your queries to post #65, trinitarians seem to be out of step with their own scholars. Who are holding onto and laying out a binitarian understanding of the ‘Godhead’, as opposed to the traditional orthodox trinitarian one.
So, people like post #65 and others who hold onto a trini theology are lagging behind a still changing and ‘progressive’, traditional Christianity.
Xavier,
I figured that’s what you meant but wasn’t sure. Ya’ know people do change their beliefs from time to time.
Sean, its interesting to see the way evangelical scholars especially like Wright [whose at the forefront right now] are moving away from traditional orthodoxy when it comes to the creedal statements regarding God and Jesus. Yet, the sly, almost ‘slight of hand’ way they retain certain elements of the doctrine.
But all in all, its a clear binitarian view their espousing. Its very hard to see how they can defend the ‘Third Person’ scheme hinted at [Nicea, 325] and later introduced [Chalcedon, 451] as dogma by the nascent Catholic Church.
Persuant to this topic other questions pop up in my mind:
Even most of the readership to this blog holds and defends [tooth and nail sometimes] a robust ‘unitarian creed’ of the Bible, why do you think the writers of the NT do not make it a point to call Jesus “god” [even if in a clearly secondary sense], given his unique relationship [and status won] alongside His God and Father?
I mean, if the Bible calls “gods to those whom the word of God came” [Jn 10.34-35], how much more the natural Son of God [cp. Jn 1.18]??
I find John 1:18 interesting.
It seems that Jesus is telling us that he is in the bosom of the Father. This reminds me of Abraham and how in the story of the begger, that he went to heaven and was in Abraham’s bosom. (Luke 16:20)
Hi,
I’m new to your type of teachings, and I didn’t take the time to read all the posts under this subject, but I may go back and do so. I just want some further clarifying on who you say that Jesus is.
I hear you say that he is God’s son and not God Himself. I am curious as to what you think this looks like. Did God have sex with a woman God who then gave birth to Jesus? I don’t mean for this to sound disrespectful or weird, but isn’t that how sons are born? Otherwise, was Jesus created by God? Does that make him his son? How would that make him any more special than an angel or a man who are also created beings? Or is Jesus eternal? – which would imply that he is God. Thanks for your responses.
Hi, Aaron! Welcome! Luke gives a simple explanation of how Jesus came about.
Luke 1:
30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.
31 “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.
32 “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;
33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”
34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
Note that the angel said the child would be conceived by God’s power, and for that very reason he would be called the Son of God.
When a baby is born, we look at the child and say, “Oh, he has his mother’s eyes and his father’s nose,” insinuating that this baby is created from both mom and dad’s gene pool and becomes a mixture of both parents.
So, many times, when people read “Son of God” and “Son of Man” titles about Jesus in their Bibles, knowing that God is Jesus’ father and Mary, a human, is his mother…they assume that it makes perfect sense to think Jesus is part God & part man…a “God-Man.” Trinitarians say that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man. But, the Bible says no such thing. To assume so, can distort the entire beauty and significance of what God did for us (sacrificing His SON) and what Jesus did for us (resisting sin and being obedient to the point of death). If Jesus was 100% God, then how can this be an example for us to resist temptation? If I was 100% God, then I’d be able to resist all the time, too!
I think it helps to understand that Jesus is the 2nd Adam. The 1st Adam was unique in that he was not born of a man and a woman, as every other person has been since then, but Jesus was created by God.
Adam too, has the title “Son of God” in the Bible. Just like Adam, Jesus was uniquely born, begotten, created by God, as a miracle. God’s Spirit (power) impregnated Mary, and therefore Jesus was divinely created by God. This does not mean that Jesus is part God, but instead, that Jesus was and is, fully human, just like Adam.
Without inheriting the sinful nature that we all have, Jesus got a unique opportunity to be obedient to God, to the point of death. He still could have sinned when Satan tempted him…but, he did not sin! Adam failed & brought sin & death into the world.. Jesus succeeded and brought us the chance & hope of eternal life in the age to come.
Aaron
he is the son of God in the same sense that we can be, by adoption till we are declared to be the actual son as Jesus was at His ressurection from the dead.
Jesus was adopted by God when he accepted Gods Will at his baptism when the Word became flesh for the first time in man and became Gods real Son as the first begotten of the dead at his ressurection.
the first thing that came(was begotten)from God was his Word(plan) in which Jesus recieved and it remained on him at His baptism
John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Romans 1:4
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Romans 8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Philippians 2:15
That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
1 John 3:1
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1 John 3:2
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Robert,
I did not realize you were an adoptionist. Do you not believe that Jesus is the son of God because God was his Father as MarkC quoted in Luke 1.35?
“Do you not believe that Jesus is the son of God”
Sean
of course i believe He is the Son of God , i just dont believe he was Begotten by God till His ressurection. I believe God caused the conception using the seed of David through Joseph without intercourse thus making it a miracle. both geneologies of Jesus are through Joseph the seed of David.
Well, I just succeeded in completing the reading of my second thread here. Wow! I gotta say, this one was more difficult than the first. I’m particularly struck by how the doctrines you propound have enabled you to establish a loving, articulate, patient, reasonable, amicable, welcoming, and unified community. The evidence of your growth in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ shows you are well on the way to attaining the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Yes, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit are well in evidence here. Is there anything you agree on other than the idea that Jesus is not God?
I’m not usually so sarcastic. This is simply the genuine reaction I have from reading this thread. I actually would like to interact with you on some ideas (more to understand some of your positions and to explore some of the implications of strict monotheism), but I seriously don’t know how productive that would be. At any rate, I probably couldn’t pick this up until after the weekend.
Rick
Thanks for sharing your views.
Let me rephrase one of my questions to get more at what I was looking to know. Do you believe Jesus existed in heaven before he was born on earth? As Colossians 1:16 says of Jesus “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created through Him and for Him.” This seems to say that Jesus created everything in the universe – something that would have been impossible if he first came into being in Luke 1.
My other question is: do you believe that Jesus was a man (simple and straight forward) like I am, or that he was something more than a man? I wonder because a man on a podcast linked to this website said something to the effect that the Holy Spirit is the presence of God and Jesus working in our lives. If the Holy Spirit includes the presence of Jesus – doesn’t that indicate that he is something more than a mere man? How else would he be everywhere at the same time, helping Christians all over the world. No other person that has died has such abilities.
I hope my questions make sense, and I await your replies.
As for myself, I believe that Jesus was a man, but not not like you or me. I believe his being conceived by the Holy Spirit rather than by a human father sets him apart, so I wouldn’t call him a “mere” man. Once he was conceived, though, he was born the same way any other man was.
After his death and resurrection, he had what the Bible calls a spiritual body. There has been some disagreement among the posters here as to what exactly that means. Some have suggested that being “spiritual” means it wasn’t physical, by definition. Personally I believe that it was a physical body that had greater scope and abilities than a normal human body. But there was a long drawn out thread about that a while back and we ended by agreeing to disagree.
Also, we are told that it is by the Holy Spirit that Jesus and the Father can dwell in us. Sean has a good explanation of it in his paper on the Holy Spirit from a Unitarian Perspective, but I don’t know where it is located. Perhaps he could post a link to it.
As I understand it, it’s not so much that Jesus himself is everywhere at the same time, but that the Holy Spirit is what enables him to work in and through many people, while he himself is seated in heaven at God’s right hand. And of course, no other person that has died has such abilities, because no other person has been resurrected to everlasting life yet.
Matthew 12
15 But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all; 16 And charged them that they should not make him known: 17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, 18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. 19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. 20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. 21 And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.
We all agree this speaks of the man Jesus, so why do some ignore that God chose him to receive His Spirit and God chose to exalt Him above all men. God chose him for the sacrafice and the High priest of the New covenant , the firstfruit of the firstfruits of the harvest and and the King of the kingdom of God.
his destiny was to be chosen at his birth but wasnt fulfiled till his baptism at which time he became the mediator of the New Covenant.
We don’t ignore that God chose him or exalted him or filled him with His Spirit. We just disagree that Luke 1:35 refers to Jesus receiving the spirit rather than God conceiving Jesus in Mary’s womb.
“We just disagree that Luke 1:35 refers to Jesus receiving the spirit rather than God conceiving Jesus in Mary’s womb.”
your right we disagree but not based on these 2 things. i dont claim any spirit was giving to Jesus when God caused his conception. the bible states perfectly clear when Jesus received the spirit of God and that was at His baptism.
the bible states nowhere that God’s seed was used in the conception only the seed of David through Joseph. all men can be called the Son of God if they chose God as their Father
I don’t know if I got all the answers I’m looking for, but I’m going to continue with another question.
What is your opinion on how someone becomes saved and is assured of going to heaven? And I’m assuming that if someone doesn’t follow this pattern than they will be destroyed in the end and not go to heaven.
Thanks.
You start with a common misconception. Jesus never said anything about going to heaven, but spoke of the Kingdom of God coming to earth. I recommend checking out Sean’s resource page on the Kingdom of God (the link is at the top of this page).
Yes I agree that Jesus talked a lot about the kingdom of God. He also said “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.” Where was Jesus at when he said this? Earth. Where was he going to? Heaven.
But leaving that part out of the discussion. I don’t think the exact location of our eternity with Jesus is as important as how we partake of it. Which brings me back to my original question of how we do that.
Thanks Mark for chatting with me. I have looked at other resources on this site and had some questions answered, but I don’t know where to go for some of my specific questions, so I hope you don’t mind posing them directly to you (or whoever cares to answer).
Actually, he didn’t say he was going to come back and take us somewhere else. He said, “I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also” (John 14:3). We will be with him wherever he is going to be. And where is he going to be? Many passages of the Bible speak of him coming to earth to rule and to judge. And he speaks of giving us the privilege of ruling with him!
Jesus called on people to “repent and believe the gospel.” The disciples preached the gospel and called for belief and repentance as well. It starts with receiving the gospel message and believing it, and confessing that Jesus is the promised Messiah, and making him Lord in one’s life. That’s why it’s important to get the message right. The message is that God is going to fix what’s wrong with the world, through His Messiah, who also gave his life so we could gain entrance into that Kingdom.
When we believe the message, we are expected to turn our heart towards him by making his goals our goals, his ways our ways, etc. That’s what “repent” means – change your mind, direction, heart, etc. When we do that we are supposed to live the rest of our lives in light of that. Those who believe the gospel to the end that they live it are the ones who will be saved when he returns.
This is of course an over-simplified answer, but I hope it helps.
Aaron,
I believed Jesus was with God from eternity dwelling in him from everlasting.
The holy spirit of God overshadowed Mary. (Luke 1:35) I suppose I could picture it as a cloud, or a fog, and within this cloud
(if I could imagine to see it, or to draw some representation of it on
paper or easel) was the substance of God (his only Son) that God used to redeem mankind.
This then entered into Mary and she became pregnant with the good news, the redeemer of Israel, his holy one. God was in
Christ all along. In him Jesus moved and had his being. He grew up as a child in the spirit of wisdom, learning the depths of spiritual things as he developed and grew to adulthood.
Later at his baptism by John in the Jordan, he received more of the spirit of God (more than just the spirit of wisdom), which was seen
in form as a dove and became known as the holy spirit.
I picture in my mind, this spiritual birth, as a cloud that overshadowed, and something of this was imparted into Mary, something from heaven, a seed of God, a Saviour which is Christ
the Lord.
Mark C.
I agree with what you say about believing in Jesus’ message and repenting in order to be saved. Do you think that if you don’t believe that God’s Kingdom is a future event on earth rather than a spiritual reality that began with Jesus’ 1st coming that you are not truly believing Jesus’ message and therefore are not truly saved? By the way, not all trinitarian Christians believe that we will be raptured to heaven – I have heard some that believe in a kingdom rule here on earth like you do.
Ray,
So you would say that the “idea” behind Jesus existed in God from before time? There are many differing beliefs on what or who the Holy Spirit is. I know this blog topic is mostly about debating whether Jesus is God, but what about the Holy Spirit? What is your take on such verses as John 16:13-15. It says in a nutshell that He (the Holy Spirit) will make known to believers what he hears from the Father. There are separate pronouns given to God and the Holy Spirit. This seems to indicate that the Holy Spirit is a distinct “entity” rather than a cloud or substance. Acts 5 also mentions that Ananias and Sapphira have lied to the Holy Spirit. Can you lie to a cloud or a force? That doesn’t make sense.
I’m continuing to do some research and Bible reading. Thanks again for chatting. I’m very interested in all this and have been reading my Bible very intently lately, which is a very good thing.
Aaron,
That is a good question that many who come to a knowledge of the kingdom gospel have pondered. I don’t known if there is a simple answer. When the Bible says to believe in Jesus and you’ll be saved, it doesn’t say to what degree one must understand all the details of the kingdom message. While I would say that if one doesn’t believe in the ultimate goal of God’s Kingdom on earth, they are not believing the WHOLE message of Jesus, I would not be comfortable declaring they are not saved, any more than I would be comfortable saying whether or not a Trinitarian is saved. I think such judgments are better left to God.
By the way, regarding those verses you mention about the holy spirit, if you understand that it is God’s presence and power working in a person or situation, it becomes clearer. Just as the “spirit of Elijah” is not a separate person from Elijah, the Spirit of God is not a separate person from God. It is a way of referring to God; saying that His Spirit said something is a figurative way of saying that He said it. To lie to the Holy Spirit is simply another way of saying the person lied to God.
I’ve written about it in detail on my website:
http://godskingdomfirst.org/holyspirit.htm
” When the Bible says to believe in Jesus and you’ll be saved, it doesn’t say to what degree one must understand all the details of the kingdom message. While I would say that if one doesn’t believe in the ultimate goal of God’s Kingdom on earth, they are not believing the WHOLE message of Jesus, I would not be comfortable declaring they are not saved, any more than I would be comfortable saying whether or not a Trinitarian is saved. I think such judgments are better left to God.”
lets let Jesus himself answer this
Matthew 7
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
you see these people believed in Jesus
this is what you need to do to be saved, a little more than just believing in Jesus, you must believe in the testamony of Jesus which gave gave him to speak
“but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”
there is one way to be sure you will be saved and that would be atleast the effort to follow each and every footstep of Jesus which is to submitt to Gods Will and forsake your own will. you do this by following Gods Morals for man put forth in his spoken commandments. it is your will to ignore them and Gods will for you to follow them.Jesus followed every one of them all of his life on earth.
Aaron, no where in scripture does it say that the holy spirit is a cloud, (that I am aware of) though some men have described seeing such a thing when the presence of God is manifest or being
made known.
I believe the holy spirit to be the Comforter whom Jesus and the Father sent, who reveals the secret things of God, reminds us of things we need to know, and leads men into truth.
It seems to me that the holy spirit in scripture may be spoken of as either a person or a spirit. I believe the scripture speaks of it as both a person and a spirit, that is, that He may be both in scripture.
I believe the holy spirit was with God in the beginning with Jesus,
and that Jesus was in that spirit of God with him from everlasting.
I believe Jesus was in the word of God from the beginning, that the spirit of God was also in that word, and that that word was Christ. When Jesus moved with God in the beginning, it was the word. When the word spoke in the beginning, it was with Jesus.
I believe God was with Jesus when the word was spoken in the beginning and that Jesus was there with God. I believe the spirit of God was with Jesus as he was in the word of God in the beginning,
and I belive this to be a great mystery.
I was reminded just now of this verse from I Cor 10:
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through
the sea.
Now, wasn’t the spirit of God in this cloud? Could he be speaking of the spirit of God as the cloud? Could God be speaking of his spirit
as a cloud?
Exodus 13:21
And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire , to give them light; to go by day and night:
How does this relate to the cloud of witnesses with which we are compassed about? Could this relate to what Elijah once saw when he said that those that were with us are far more than those that are against us?
Mark,
I skimmed over your article .. I will have to go back and read it more in detail.
I don’t know if it’s the best thing to use a man’s being to describe God’s being – not that we can’t learn something of God from looking at men – but I don’t think everything can be exactly equivalent 1 to 1.
But if you do want to go that route, Paul mentions that we do have a spirit, a soul, and a body – three distinct parts to us that make up one self. (I Thess 5:23) If I am standing before you, I can’t say “You are looking at my spirit” because our spirits are not seen. You are looking at my body. So, the spirit of Elijah is Elijah, but it is not the person Elijah. My body is not my spirit, my spirit is not my soul, etc…
A trinitarian could use the same reasoning to say that the Holy Spirit is God, but not God the Father.
I go back to John 16:13 “(the Spirit) will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears…” Without a trinity explanation of this, don’t you at least have a God with multiple personalities? Personality “one” tells personality “two” what to say and then he says it.
Even if you don’t believe that Jesus is God, I wonder why Paul constructed 2 Corinthians 13:14 the way he did. “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” If he starts out by mentioning two unique individuals, why does he conclude by referring to God again with new terminology? Why not say “the love and fellowship of God be with you? It seems to be purposefully formulated as such to refer to 3 separate individuals. Of course, I don’t know Greek and how it’s formulation in that language might help us understand it.
Ray,
Those are interesting verses about God’s presence in the form of a cloud. I never saw the likeness to the Holy Spirit. I’m a little confused, Ray, do you see the Holy Spirit as a distinct individual, or as the Father Himself. Your wording seems to portray Him as a distinct “person” – which is what I believe, in case you haven’t guessed. You are definitely right though – it is a great mystery!
Robert,
I would throw one verse in there as well – not to contradict, but to shed more light on what God’s will is. John 6:28-29. “Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” He puts the emphasis on the belief. You can do good works, but if they are not rooted in true belief, they are of no worth to the Kingdom. I would say that the ones who prophesied and did the good works did not believe in Jesus – at least not the fullness of Jesus. The Father tells them “I never knew you.” This would indicate that they never knew the Father. They may have understood that Jesus’ name has power, but that is all.
I would also augment one of your closing phrases slightly.
You said “there is one way to be sure you will be saved and that would be at least the effort to follow each and every footstep of Jesus which is to submit to Gods Will and forsake your own will.
I would say “there is one way to be sure that we ARE saved..” and then mention our desires and efforts to follow God’s will. As James said “I will show you my faith by what I do.” Good works are the litmus test of a true faith, but the faith must come first and is of primary importance.
Well, I’ve gone on a little too long… my bad.
The Hebrew mindset did not see such a separation the way Western thought does. It was common in the Scriptures to say things like “My spirit is troubled” meaning “I am troubled,” or “I am grieved in my spirit” meaning “I am grieved in the deepest part of myself.”
You’re correct, it is not an exact 1 to 1 comparison with God, but He does use similar language, saying “my spirit shall not always strive” to mean “I will not always strive.” Saying something “grieves God’s spirit” is another way of saying that it grieves God. The spirit of God, being an extension of God’s heart and mind, has the same qualities of God.
The fellowship of the Holy Spirit is more specific than the fellowship of God. God and Christ indwell us through the power of the Holy Spirit. The three are mentioned together a few other places, although of course nowhere are they said to be three persons in one God, or co-equal and co-eternal.
It takes some time and study to really understand it, but it is relatively simple when you look at how the words are used in the Old and New Testaments.
“The Father tells them “I never knew you.” This would indicate that they never knew the Father. They may have understood that Jesus’ name has power, but that is all.”
Aaron
i fail to see where you say the Father tells them in Matthew 7:
21, but its for certain that they never knew the Father in the way of a personal relationship with Him.
i believe this is saying that their faith in Jesus must of been misplaced somehow. maybe these were worshiping him as a God instead of knowing him as the son. maybe these set up altars(idols) to him instead of believing in what that couldnt see. maybe they forsaked Gods morals by making Jesus’ morals his own. but what i dont see is a lack of faith but Jesus tells them here it was dead faith that wasnt based on the Will of HIS GOD.
I think thinking we Are saved is why we fail to do the Will of God, to hold to we are saved by grace thru faith alone is not understanding that Jesus was also saved by the Grace of God.
Grace is telling us that God hasnt gave up on us but there still is a narrow path to show we accept the Grace we are not deserving of
Aaron,
To answer your question to be about whether I see the Holy Spirit as a distinct individual, or as the Father himself,
I perceive the holy spirit as both distinct from God and as the Father himself.
I don’t know if the holy spirit of God is a person or not. One thing I am sure of is that it’s not my calling of God to go about trying to convince people that he is or is not a person . It is the gift of God, according to the promise made by Jesus. It is also referred to as the Comforter by Jesus and as “He”.
Though I say the holy spirit of God is distinct from God, the holy spirit of God is as God is. Jesus also is as the Father is, though he is distinguished from him, being his Son.
Maybe the holy spirit is more like an endless cloud that envelopes
the saints than it is like a person at times. I suppose at times, the
holy spirit is more like a person than like a cloud.
I suppose it can be said that a man is not complete without his soul. Has God ever been without his spirit? It seems to me that God has always been with his spirit, and that his spirit has always been with him.
Robert,
My bad… the phrase “I never knew you” in Matthew 7:23 is Jesus talking to the person who is condemned. I don’t understand how you say that Jesus was saved. If he was “saved” then he must have been a sinner, by definition, and I’m sure we both agree that Jesus was without sin.
I’m curious of your take on a couple more things.
What is meant by the phrase Jesus is Lord? (Rom 10:9)
Also, in Genesis “Let US make man in our own image?”
Aaron,
If I could jump in for a second…Gen. 1.26 by both the NIV study Bible and the more recent NET is taken to be God addressing his heavenly court (i.e. angels etc.). To read the actual quotes from these Bibles, click here.
On Romans 10.9, Jesus is Lord could mean at least two things. (1) Submission to him–he is our lord; we are his servants, therefore we do what he says, cf. Lk 6.46. (2) Jesus is the one God has invested with authority to rule over the world–Jesus, not Caesar or whoever, is the true lord of the world (i.e. Messiah = one anointed to rule on God’s behalf cf. Ps 2.6-8, etc.). Calling someone “Lord” in antiquity did not imply that they were God. Society was highly stratified and everyone knew there place. Calling a superior “Lord” often occurs even in the parables Jesus told, though most translations use the word “sir” for this usage.
Also, can I ask you a couple of questions? (1) If the Trinity were true why does the Bible always use singular pronouns to refer to God? A singular pronoun indicates a singular person. God is always a “he” not a “they.” (2) Why did Jesus agree with the non-trinitarian, Jewish scribe about the definition of God in Mark 12.28-34? We all know that this man did not interpret the shema in a trinitarian fashion…rather he equated Deut 4.35 with Deut 6.4 by saying, “He is one and there is no other besides him.” This is the language of exclusivity applied to God as a single individual. Please note that this scribe was in no antagonistic towards Jesus and Jesus recognized the man was “not far from the kingdom of heaven.”
Jesus’ ‘lordship’ is to be understood in the context of Psa 110.1 where YHWH [GOD] addresses David’s “my lord” [adoni]:
Persuant to this discussion, following are some comments from Harris in his Conclusion [Theos as a Christological Title] to “Jesus as God”, sec. G. Reasons for the Infrequency of the Usage [p 281-282]:
“I don’t understand how you say that Jesus was saved. If he was “saved” then he must have been a sinner, by definition, and I’m sure we both agree that Jesus was without sin.”
Was Jesus not raised from the dead to eternal life?
It was the offer of Grace that made that even possible.
It was because Jesus was sinless that it did happen.
Hi All,
I recently heard an interesting perspective on the question of: “Did Jesus need to save himself?”.
This belief defines the word “saved” as “saved from God’s wrath”. God’s wrath, in turn, is defined as the second death – i.e., permanent destruction.
So, in this belief, if a person is “saved”, it means that he will not be condemned to permanent death – i.e., it means that that person will be granted everlasting life.
As we know, the sacrifice of Jesus has given all mankind the opportunity to be saved. In other words, due to the sacrifice of Jesus, all humans have the ability to be saved from God’s wrath – and be granted everlasting life.
So, that raises the question – what would have happened, if Jesus had not agreed to be sacrificed? Well, it would mean that no human being would be able to be saved – i.e., no human being could ever be granted everlasting life.
In addition, I believe that Jesus, himself, is a human being.
So, according to this belief, if Jesus had not allowed himself to be sacrificed, then that would mean that no human being – including Jesus – would ever be granted everlasting life!
Of course, Jesus did not commit any sins – so he did not need to be sacrificed to be forgiven for any sins. (This is exactly why his sacrifice was acceptable to God.) However, according to this belief, Jesus did need to be sacrificed in order for all humans – including himself – to be granted everlasting life.
Does this belief make sense to any of you?
Brian
Jesus had to keep himself sanctified. He did it for all of humanity, whosoever would believe on him for salvation. I suppose in that sense, he did need to save himself even though he had not sinned.
The possibility and temptations of sin were all around him. He kept himself safe by trusting in and dwelling in God, abiding in his word,
and being obedient to him even unto the death of the cross.
I believe Jesus did spread out the skies with God in the beginning.
Welcome all new persons, glad to discuss with you.
I’m still a little stuck on the thought that Jesus “saved” himself. Even if saved means “saved from dying” as you say, Jesus did not raise himself from the dead. So then, I guess you would say he earned salvation by living a perfect life and therefore earning the right to be raised from the dead. However, Galatians 3:11 says “Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.” So if Jesus was not justified in God’s eyes by obeying the law, how was he justified? Was it by faith? That might be a little rabbit trail… But let me throw one other verse in there. If God’s judgment is simply dying and ceasing to exist, what is meant by Hebrews 9:27 “And it is appointed unto man once to die, but after this the judgment.” And how does this relate to Rev 20:13 “And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.” Both indicate that a judgment occurs after one dies.
I see there is a link titled “Death is Sleep.” I’ll have to check that out.
Sean,
In answer to your questions 1.) God is often referred to in plural terms. The Hebrew word “Elohim” as found in Genesis 1:1 is the plural word for God. I checked out your link to Genesis 1:26. If the “us” refers to God and the angels, are you telling me that the angels assisted God in making man? That would elevate the angels to God-like status. 2.) Even a trinitarian would agree with this verse – that God is one – that he is exclusive and there is none other but Him. The word “one”, or echad, in Hebrew can also mean “as one / unified.” That’s the same word used to describe a marriage union “the two shall become one flesh.” They don’t become a 2 headed monster, they are individuals, yet they are one. Also, Jesus doesn’t tell the scribe that he is close to the Kingdom because he parrots back what Jesus told him. Jesus says this because of what he adds “(love) is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” He is close because he sees that God’s Kingdom is not centered around observing a bunch of rituals and laws, but centered on a love relationship with God and with others. I’m sure we can both agree on that.
I’ve gone long again, and I apologize, but I’ll wrap it up with one more question. Why did the Jews crucify Jesus? Was it because he claimed he was God? That seems to be the case. If Jesus was not God, why would he allow himself to be killed based on a false accusation? It would have been very easy to say “sorry guys, you misunderstood me, I am not God.”
God Bless you all!
Aaron, you asked why did [some] of the Jews want Jesus crucified?
Jesus cites the well known “son of man” vision in Daniel 7. What does the title “son of man” mean and what does it say about WHO it is?
For the full article visit: http://benadam74.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/background-to-the-son-of-man-sayings-f-f-bruce/
In addition to Xavier’s point that Jesus was crucified because he claimed to be the Messiah, I’d also like to point out that he did in fact say at one point, “sorry guys, you misunderstood me, I am not God,” although it was not to keep from getting crucified. It in fact clarifies the often misunderstood quote of “I and my father are one.” He meant it as a statement of unity of purpose with God, and they thought he meant he was God. But he clarifies it in the following verses.
John 10:
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
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?
Good point Mark C., even the ESV Study Bible concurs:
TheMcArthur Study Bible concurs with the ESV:
Furthermore, in the same way Jesus describes himself as being “one” with the Father in Jn 10.30, believers are also said to be “EVEN [in the same way] AS WE ARE ONE” [Jn 17.11; cp. 21-23]. The Apostle Paul later states that “he who is joined to the Lord becomes ONE SPIRIT WITH HIM” [1Cor 6.17]. Because, apparently, “there is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call” [Eph 4.4].
Aaron, It seems to me that if a man lives unto God in this world and does so having never sinned, then he did so by faith and his works would have born witness to his faith that he had in God, and
that if a man could do so, then he could escape the judgment of God’s wrath and also the penalty for sin which is death. Jesus did all that and we reaped the benefits of his life on this earth by faith
and God’s abundant grace given to us by him because he never fell into sin and it’s corruption.
It’s amazing how we are connected to Jesus by our sins. It’s a connection that brings us unto death, but also a connection that brings us unto life by him as we receive by faith the good news of
God’s justification to us through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, his work, his obedience, and his offering of himself for us.
When ever we sin against any of his, we did it unto him. We can’t escape what we have done against him but we can escape the judgment of condemnation unto death because of Jesus Christ our
Saviour.
What we’ve done against him and God is a part of our history that will never change, but thanks be to God for Jesus covering our sins with his blood, and thereby giving us life, for the sentence of death
we had earned.
Jesus saved himself from this untoward generation, (the generation of natural man who walks according to the wicked ways of a fallen world) the same thing we are to do. We can only save ourself from this world and it’s ways by faith in God by Jesus Christ and God’s gift of righteousness by Jesus’ life.
One thing about death, the second death is suffering eternal hell, not a state or condition of nothingness. We either have the option of eternal life with Jesus, or suffering in an eternal hell where it’s
torment and flames never go out.
Ray, so “second death” doesn’t really mean “death”?
In order for someone to suffer eternal torment in unending flames, God would have to grant them eternal life – otherwise how could they remain alive forever in that torment.
The Bible NEVER gives man a choice between eternal life with Jesus and eternal life in torment. The choice is between life and death. Scriptures say the wicked will be destroyed, not endlessly tormented.
Check out my article on this:
http://godskingdomfirst.org/wicked.htm
Second death means death. It’s to be thrown into the lake of fire
to suffer in a place of endless torture. That’s what this death is.
Looking up the word “death” in a dictionary may be of help.
Ray,
For the record, I do believe as you that there is a hell, a place of suffering. Jesus talks more about hell than he does about heaven. I just saw that some of the doctrine on this website does not teach an everlasting punishment of hell.
Personally, I don’t think our doctrine of hell is a major issue in the whole scheme of things. Our doctrine of Jesus, on the other hand, seems to be a very big deal – which is why we are discussing all this.
I’ll have to do a little study on “Son of Man” and “Son of God.” Jesus uses these phrases a lot. He obviously thinks it is very important that we know who he is. Just as he asked Peter “Who do you say that I am?”
John 10:34 definitely is an interesting passage. As a trinitarian I would obviously like it better if Jesus answered “Yes indeed, I am God.” I will have to take a closer look at that passage. I do know this, that Jesus seemed to want to reveal himself slowly, and only to select individuals. Mark 1:34 says “he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.” And other times, he told people who were healed not to tell anyone. From my perspective, maybe Jesus did not come right out to the Pharisees who had stones in their hands and said that he was God, because they would have killed him right then and there, when his destiny was to die on the cross after he had finished his work with the disciples. And for the record, Jesus does not say here or anywhere that he is not God.
From Merriam-Webster:
What would be even more helpful is to look up how it is used and defined in the Bible. Also how “life” and “soul” are used as well.
I [and perhaps others who agree with me] do think this is of outmost importance since the “eternal hell” doctrine does away with not only the Christian hope, nature of humanity [immortal soul], and promise of eternal life to BELIEVERS ONLY, but also makes God some type of sadistic brute!
” I do know this, that Jesus seemed to want to reveal himself slowly, and only to select individuals.”
Aaron this verse shows that Jesus had the perfect opportunity to completely reveal himself as God but confirms that God is the same relationship to us as He is to Him. If he couldnt reveal himself to the Disciples than just who could he reveal himself to, plus any fears he had of being killed no longer existed.
your claim he feared death is why he didnt reveal during his life proves he wasnt God
John 20
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
“And for the record, Jesus does not say here or anywhere that he is not God.”
John 20
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
For the record, this verse does exactly that. there are many more if you really look with an open mind.
Robert,
No doubt, John 20 can be a troubling verse. For how can Jesus be God, and yet say that the Father is his God? There are many verses of Jesus declaring his subservience to the Father. I will definitely look at these verses more closer. I would also say that there are many verses that claim that Jesus is God. What does one do? How can both be true? Before I go into looking at these verses more closely, let me just make this statement: The concept of the trinity is the only doctrine that reconciles both of these realities. The doctrine that Jesus is only a man causes one to have to dismiss and rationalize the other verses away.
Let’s look at a verse that I think shows Christ’s divinity. Jude verse 4 contains the line “…and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”
As we looked at earlier, “Lord” is used in a variety of ways in Greek and in the Bible. Here, the word “Lord” is the root behind both “Master” and “Lord.” Now, if we are only to take the term “Lord Jesus” to mean “Master Jesus” in other parts of the Bible, does this verse actually say “our only Master and Master, Jesus Christ?” No. If you look at the Greek words, the word Despotes is translated as Master, and the word Kyrios is translated as Lord – different root words. Despotes is used in Greek to stress sovereignty and Kyrios is the same word used to translate Yaweh in the old testament. It is also the word behind the translation of Matthew 3:3 “Make ready the way of the LORD” which is also a direct quote from Isaiah speaking of God Almighty.
Xavier,
Who are we to be God’s judge? Can we from our finite perspective tell God what he should and should not do? Our attitude should be like Job’s, who said “Though he slay me, yet will I praise him.”
God’s ways are higher than ours, and His thoughts higher than ours.
Aaron
You have to be very careful when using expressions instead of clear statements like the one i just showed you because using them could show satan existing within a multi-person god.
Why would any need to look anywhere else to understand who Jesus thought He was and who he thought God was. this verse has to be completely ignored to continue in belief of a triune god and to completely ignore this means the whole book of John has to be put into question.
Aaron,
Don’t be so quick to say that the trinity is the only doctrine that says that Jesus is both a man and God. I’ll show you how I do it, and I hate the trinity doctrine. I don’t teach the trinity doctrine, I don’t encourage it. I do not say that it’s necessary for salvation. I hate such teachings. I see them as man made doctrines, made by men for the acceptance of men among themselves, by themselves as if they are for themselves, and that’s not the gospel is it?
So how do I get to reconciling the fact that Jesus is both God and man? I do it according to the word of Christ, not by the words of men or of men’s teachings, for I consider them to be corrupt.
Jesus said that people can be salt, right? Well if people can be salt,
then doesn’t that mean that Jesus can be God?
See, you don’t have to be a trinitarian to arrive at some of the things trinitarians say. I don’t have to try to explain how I get to where I am by any trinitarian way. I get there another way.
It’s like the time I went riding in a four wheel drive on some trails with a church group who I consider trinitarians because of what I heard taught in their church. I knew the area we were in. I knew where we were while we were in the four wheel drive vehicle because I had been there often by dirt bike. I just couldn’t tell them how to get back by four wheel drive trail. I only knew the dirt bike trails. I had arrived there a different way.
There’s also this one:
John 17:3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
He was saying this to his Father (verse 1) which clearly demonstrates that the Father is the only true God.
Aaron, your right God will judge the world through his Son and the saints [Dan 7.22; Mat 19.28; 1Cor 6.2; Rev 20.4].
Scripture also states that humans are not immortal [Gen 3.22] and do experience a real physical and in the future “spiritual” death. In other words, for the biblical perspective death means death. Jewish thought teaches aresurrection of the body, i.e., a reanimation or re-embodiment of corporal bodies in a physical, national community/kingdom.
This is in sharp contrast to early Greek philosophy and later Gnostic-Christian ideas. Plato indicated that soul of man is essentially divine, pre-existent and eternal. Aristotle limited divinity, eternality and immortality to “active intellect” of man’s soul (rationalism).
We must not attribute God’s attributes to man, Who the Bible teaches is “the only One Who is immortal” [1Tim 1.17; cp. John 5:26; 6.13-16; Rom 1.23]. Such deifies man. Man is not divine, eternal or immortal. Such realities are extrinsic to man.
God’s life and immortality can be invested in man because:
• God is the creative source and sustenance of all forms of life: Neh. 9:6 – “Thou doest give life to all of them”; Acts 17:25, 28 – “He Himself gives to all life and breath…”; I Tim. 6:13 – “God, who gives life to all things”.
• God is the sole source of spiritual, eternal life in man: Jn. 17:3 – “this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent”.
• Christocentric immortality and eternal life: I Tim. 1:17 – “the King eternal, immortal…”; Jn. 14:6 – “I am the way, the truth, and the life”; Col. 3:4 – “Christ is our life”; II Tim. 1:10 – “Christ Jesus abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel”.
• Immortality in man is derived ontologically and dynamically from God in Christ by His grace: John 11:26; 14:19 – “because I live, you shall live also”.
• Immortality in man is conditioned on our receptivity of the ontological essence of God’s immortality made available in Jesus Christ: Rom. 2:7 – “those who seek..immortality, find eternal life”; Gal. 6:8 – “the one who sows to the flesh reaps corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal life”.
• Immortality and eternal life are received in regeneration: Jn. 3:7 – “you must be born again”; Jn. 3:16 – “whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life”; I Pet. 1:3 – “born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead”.
• Immortality and eternal life will be displayed in our future bodily resurrection: The glorified and spiritual body will be an immortal body; I Cor. 15:53, 54 – “the mortal shall have put on immortality”.
Let’s remember that to Jesus, God is the only true God.
To me Jesus is the only true God among all the gods (men who have received the word of God, see Psalm 82) who came from the only true God.
These things have to be discerned properly.
Jesus is the Lord of the word of God. Sometimes men want to lord the word, or be lords over the word. Depending on Jesus they will either stand or fall, be judged , and receive either reward or not for what their work has been.
Let’s remember also that death can be different things. All people have fallen into sin and have experienced some kind of condition of
being “dead” in tresspasses and sins. Yet, they lived and moved and had their being in a condition that was or is less than an abundant life in Christ. In such a condition they were or are in a state of being cursed, or less than blessed, being separated from the life that is in Christ.
In such a condition, they could not/ can not respond to the things of God without his intervention by grace in order that they might be restored.
How much of a living hell is the second death which is mentioned in Revelation? How much more of a living cursed condition should we expect it to be, who seek to escape such a place of eternal damnation.
Speaking of things that Jesus said of himself…
John 14:9-10 “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?”
John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”
John 17:5 “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. ”
I know you have different interpretations of what the first couple verses say, but let look at John 17:5. It shows a couple things. First, Jesus was with the Father before the world began – and not as an idea or concept. Furthermore, Jesus says he shares the same glory that the Father has. Contrast that with Isaiah 43:8 “I am the LORD, that is my name; I will not give My glory to another.” Jesus can not share any of the LORD’s glory if he himself is not God. The same goes for John 20:28 where Thomas says of Jesus “My Lord and my God.” Jesus does not reject this statement, instead he says Thomas is blessed because he believed. If Jesus was not God he would have corrected Thomas in the same way that the Angels in the OT told people not to worship them when they appeared.
Xavier,
I agree with your quotes about God being the source of eternal life.
Ray,
You do believe that Jesus was God and man? And when you say “not by the words of men or of men’s teachings, for I consider them to be corrupt” are you referring to the book of Jude and the words there?
Mark C.,
I read your article on the Holy Spirit on your website as well as a couple other articles. I agree with much of what you say. I must go back to this question because it really intrigues me. When we were talking about the “us” in Genesis … Do you believe that the angels assisted God in creating the world?
I’m going to take a couple quotes from your article on the Holy Spirit and draw a conclusion from them.
You say “When Ananias lied to the apostles, he lied to God’s holy spirit working in and through them, and therefore he lied to God.” You are talking about how the Holy Spirit basically is another way to reference to God Himself – His heart and character.
You also reference Romans 8:9 where Paul mentions the “Spirit of God” dwelling in believers and then turns around and calls it the “Spirit of Christ.” You said “There is no difference since Jesus made God known and always did the Father’s will.”
So…
If The Holy Spirit = God
and The Holy Spirit = Spirit of Christ
then the Spirit of Christ = God
Finally, I’ll mention a couple verses in Revelations. Revelations 1:8 says “I am the Alpha and Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Alpha and Omega is a phrase that also means “the first and the last.”
Rev. 2:8 goes on to say “The first and the last, who was DEAD, and has come to life, says this…” Here, Jesus is referred to as the first and the last.
Rev. 22:12,13 quote Jesus saying “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
No man can say these things, no matter how blessed they are, no matter how obedient they are, no matter how exalted they are. No man can share in the glory that only God is worthy to receive.
Jesus is the Lamb in Rev. 22:1 which mentions a river of life “coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb.” Whether you take it to mean they share a single throne or their thrones are next to each other, the picture is the same – they share the same authority and they share the same glory. No man – no matter how exalted they are, or how much grace they have received – can share a throne with God.
I’ve gone quite long again. I apologize if my passion comes across as hostility. Nothing will get accomplished in this blog if it is not done in the right spirit. Again, God bless you all.
Aaron, regarding your use of Rev 1.8.
The seeming exclusion of the divine name [YHWH] in the NT, does not make “the God” [ho theos] of Israel, Father of Jesus of Nazareth, somehow different or unidentifiable. The name is replaced by the standard “Lord” or the Semitic “Abba” (Mar 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6), in each case followed by its Greek equivalent, pater ["father"]. If there is a connection with the “I AM” of Ex 3:14 in the NT, it is found in the koine Greek phrase ho ōn ho ēn ho erchomenos: “the one being and the one who had been and the one coming” (Rev 1:4, 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:5).
The first expression (ho ṓn) declares that there has never been a time when God was not existent; hence He is self-existent. The second expression (ho ḗn = the One who had been), takes us back all the way before the creation itself, to which He gave existence, He Himself having been self-existent. The last part [ho erchómenos; literally "the coming One"] does not exclude the fact that He came at different times and in different ways speaking to His creation (Heb 1:1-2). He came, He is here, and He will yet keep coming in ways peculiar and necessary for the execution of His will. The reason why this designation of God is given only in Revelation may be because it is only there that God’s plan and purpose are fully revealed.
Also, see the origin behind the made up Christological title, “Christ Pantocrator”:
Aaron,
First, I want to address something from your previous post.
Actually there are but a handful of verses that are thought to claim that Jesus is God but actually do not when examined closely. There are only two verses for sure that refer to Jesus as God, and both are in the sense of a person representing God and thus being called God. In contrast, he is called the Son of God many, many more times.
There is another, more logical concept that reconciles the two realities. The Father is called the Only True God. Jesus is called the Son of God most often, and called God only a couple of times in the same representational sense that the Judges were called God in the OT.
We don’t say that Jesus is “only” a man. We say that he is the only-begotten Son of God, the promised Messiah, the ultimate representative of God. In contrast, the doctrine of the Trinity causes one to have to dismiss and rationalize the clear distinctions between God and His Son. I have an article about this on my web site, too; check it out:
http://godskingdomfirst.org/WhoIsMessiah.htm
…Now to address your most recent post:
Not quite. The Holy Spirit is God’s power and presence, as operational in a person or situation. It is not just another name for God. So saying “The Holy Spirit = God” is not quite accurate. It’s a way of God communicating and interacting with His creation.
It’s like, if I speak with my voice, I could either say “I said such and such” or I could say “My voice said such and such” (figuratively and poetically). They are two different ways of saying the same thing. But you wouldn’t conclude that “Mark = Mark’s Voice.” In fact there are verses where God’s Word and His Spirit and His Voice are used in much the same way. Several of them are referenced in my article to which you refer. Does that help?
Aaron,
The book of Jude is as it says a writing from a servant of the Lord Jesus.
When we deny the truth, we deny Jesus who is the truth, for how can we receive him and deny that which is true at the same time?
Jesus told us that there is one God, his Father which is in heaven,
and that he was with the Father from the beginning in glory. Throughout the prophets, God told them often times that he had no idols with him and that he bows to nothing that can be considered a god. There are and never were any false gods with him, though at times there were some with Israel. God often reminded them of this fact.
I was in no way referring to the book of Jude as being corrupt. I too believe there is one Lord God and one Lord Jesus Christ, as David also did. (though David did not know him by the name “Jesus”)
When men say one must accept the trinity doctrine, or they are not a Christian, are they not guilty of separating themselves from a part of Christ, as others who do not necessarily agree with their doctrines which men have built in honor to God, have also been accepted by him and received the gift of the holy spirit by faith?
Jude 19
These be they who separate themeslves…
I bring this to your attention for your consideration.
Though Jesus was with God from eternity, God often chose to not
reveal much about this. He kept much of this mystery hidden. All
the glory that Jesus had was from God, but God decided to not share many things to us which he later revealed about Jesus, the one who had the glory with God in eternity as he is his Son who was brought up by him. (see the prophecy of Proverbs 8 concerning Jesus)
God didn’t share his glory with any idols, or what some men considered to be gods. He didn’t allow any idol or thing which men had worshipped in idolatry to share in the praises of worshipping men as if such
a “god” were in heaven with him that ruled anything in heaven that
God himself would give up any authority, dominion, or power to.
It never was that way with God.
This does not mean that Jesus was not with him in glory. It’s simply
something that was hidden from the eyes of men, and something God did not always reveal when he spoke to men through the prophets.
There were times when God did reveal some glimpse of this fact that his Son was with him in the heavenly realm. Men like David told of how his own life was a shadow of the things of Christ, as he told of two Lords, one that was his under the one Lord over all.
Isaiah also gave hints to this mystery in his writings. He hid some of this in the manner in which he spoke.
Jesus is as God is in so many ways, that at times I will say in poetry or song, or in allegory that he “is” God. This does not violate
the fact that he is his Son and is under the one who has all power, dominion, and glory, the same who has given all that to his Son, Jesus. Because of this, there is a “sense” in which Jesus “is” God, even though he is his Son who was always with him, dwelling in God who is the great light that men in the flesh can not approach unto.
Paul the apostle said that for him to live is Christ. So how could a man see Paul live and not recognize Christ? If one would have seen the life of Paul, he should then understand some things about Jesus who lived in Paul as Paul lived in him.
This same pattern can be seen in Jesus. To see the life of Jesus is to see the life of God, the life God wants to give to all men through faith in him by Jesus Christ his gift of life.
God never subjected his rule to another against his own will. There was no one that God had to bow to. He is the supreme ruler of all.
When God told Israel that he shares his glory with no one, isn’t it like a Captain in the Army, who in his company, shares his rank and position with no other man in that company, as he is the highest ranking officer in that company?
When men say that because God shares his glory with no one, and because Jesus has a great part in the glory of God, I conclude that Jesus is God, …….I will tell you, I don’t Necessarily agree with them.
I don’t think exactly like them, and when they speak, I don’t always understand what it is that they are saying. This doesn’t necessarily make me wrong, or contrary to the Bible, and there are many others like me.
Do men think they have the God given authority to require men to agree with them? If so, by what authority? Does the scripture teach them to rule over all others in such a manner?
I’ve heard men say that some things are essential and that they will fight to the end on such things, but when I see how they walk in those things, that is not what they do, for I have never heard them say, “You must belive this to be saved. You must repent or be damed to an eternity in hell if you do not receive what I am telling you exactly as I am telling you without changing one thing about it. I tell you this for your salvation. You can not be saved any other way. You must repent now.”
I’ve never seen men do what they say they do as concerning their “essentials”. I’ve found them to be liars, for their actions do not follow what they say about themselves.
They seem to want to fight to prove to others that they are right, that their doctrine is right, rather than fight for the salvation of souls, and that’s not the gospel. They don’t seem to know the gospel, or if they know it, they are not following it.
Let’s not be as them. Let’s do better.
Aaron,
All Christians share a throne with God in Christ. There is one great golden throne which is made up of many thrones. In the one great throne of God in Christ, there are rows and rows of thrones which are a part of the one throne of God. It’s all summed up in Christ.
We really are seated with Christ in the heavenlies. Those who overcome are invited to sit with Christ in the Father’s throne.
Here’s a pretty interesting article by Anthony Buzzard regarding “What is the ‘throne of God and the Lamb’?”
Correction on my previous post [#135], Anthony Buzzard did not write the article. Sorry, had to remove it from the blogspot as well.
Mark C.
Can you tell me the references where OT judges were called god? I’d like to check those out.
Your earlier post “Just as the “spirit of Elijah” is not a separate person from Elijah, the Spirit of God is not a separate person from God. It is a way of referring to God” seemed closer to saying that the Holy Spirit and God are so closely related that the terms are interchangeable. I didn’t mean to misquote you. It just seems like by your terms, the Holy Spirit goes back and forth between being an extension of who God is to being a way of communicating. Like you said, I wouldn’t consider Mark’s voice to = Mark, but I would consider it equally incoherent to say that Mark’s voice was grieved, or that I have sinned against Mark’s voice – things that are said of the Holy Spirit.
Believe me that I am smiling when I ask this again, but please clue me in to your ideas of the creation narrative. Did angels assist in creating the world?
Xavier,
I commend you on your knowledge and use of Greek. Unfortunately, it was a little too much Greek and you sort of lost me on where you were going with all that. I failed to see where you said that the title “Alpha and Omega” being spoken of God and of Jesus does not show that they are the same.
Ray,
I think you spoke very well when talking of the higher calling of Christians to reach out to the lost instead of arguing amongst themselves. I agree that we are to love the lost just as Jesus did.
As a Pentecostal Christian – one who believes in speaking in tongues and prophecy and the gifts of the spirit – there are many Christians who hold the same views as I do about the trinity – who say that I am out of line, that I am deceived, and at worst am under the influence of demons. I have debated with these a bit, but like you said – that can involve a lot of steam without much Kingdom progress. (we can debate speaking in tongues here if you like, but I didn’t see a category for that).
Let me just raise an issue though. Mormons believe they are Christians – that they are following the Bible as they interpret it. Jehovah’s witnesses do to. Would we consider them to be true Christians? They believe in God and Jesus, and that Jesus is the doorway to salvation, but we both agree that their theology is way off. Therefore, they can’t really be saved because they have a distorted view of who God and Jesus are. (Let me add that both of these “cults” say that Christianity has had it wrong these last 2,000 years and that they are going back to its original foundations. I don’t know if it is intentional, but I hear the same sentiment when I read some of the articles on this website and listen to some of the podcasts.)
Truly, we are not the judge like God is the judge and only He knows who is truly saved and not saved. But, we see cases in the NT, especially in Acts, where the apostles wrestled with different doctrines before coming to an understanding of what God’s full truth is. So, I think God encourages us to wrestle with what the scriptures say. Paul encourages us to use wisdom when dealing with the teachings of men, because false prophets can deceive and snatch some from the fold.
All this to say that I’m going to hang low a little bit with these daily discussions. (at least I say that now) I don’t know if I have accomplished anything as far as helping us to get a fuller idea of what the scriptures say, but I know that all this talk has accomplished a great deal in me. Like I mentioned before, I have been looking more intently into the Scriptures than I have in quite a while. I have been studying and checking out the Greek and developing a greater hunger to see the whole truth. In the end, sorry to say, my study has only deepened my understanding and appreciation for how Jesus’ divinity and humanity were merged.
I pray that the Holy Spirit will guide us into the truths that are really central to Christianity.
I just started reading over this article if anyone is interested. Xavier, I see that you have already been exposed to it.
In case anyone else wants to see:
http://www.tektonics.org/uz/unitresp.html
He answered some questions that I hadn’t heard answered yet.
Aaron, as far as I know the title “Alpha and Omega” is only applied to God the Father in the book of Revelation [1.8; 21.6; 22.13].
The historical-grammatical origin of this phrase is unknown.
The noted scholar Bullinger says that the phrase “is a Hebraism, in common use among the ancient Jewish Commentators to designate the whole of anything from the beginning to the end; e.g., ‘Adam transgressed the whole law from Aleph to Tau’ (Jalk. Reub., fol. 17.4)” [E. W. Bullinger, Commentary on Revelation (Kregel Pub., Grand Rapids, MI, 1984), pp. 147 and 148.]
Also of interest is the fact that some later manuscripts adds the phrase “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” to v. 11, where the speaker identifies himself as Jesus Christ [vv.12-18]. Note this interesting quote from well known Arian Isaac Newton in one of his letters to the noted scientist/scholar John Locke:
In addition, even if this particular title was given to Jesus, it does not mean they are one and the same “person”. The Bible ascribes YHWH titles to both humans and angelic figures alike. For example, both God and Christ share the titles “Lord” (Rom. 10:9), “Savior” (Luke 1:47) and “king of kings (1 Tim. 6:14-16). Yet people like Moses and Aaron are seen as savior and deliverers in the OT [cp. Exodus 3:10,12; 12:17; 18:10; Numbers 16:28; Judges 2:6,18; 3:9,10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:24,25; 14:6,19; 15:14,18; 16:20,28-30, 2 Kings 4:27; Isaiah 43:11, 45:1-6; etc.]. Also, the title “king of kings” was used by kings of the Ancient Near East and expresses their sovereignty over many subject peoples. [cp. Dan 2:37; Ezra 7:12; 26.7].
I’m glad you brought this to my attention. I thought I had included all the references in the article, but it turns out I didn’t. I have now corrected that on the site. They are:
Exodus 21:6; 22:8, 9 (2x) – Elohim is translated “judges.”
I Samuel 2:25 – Elohim is translated “judge.”
Exodus 22:28 – Elohim is translated “gods,” referring to judges or authorities.
Psalm 82:6-8 – Elohim is translated “gods,” which is the verse Jesus refers to in John 10:34.
The terms Spirit of God and Holy Spirit are used in the Bible to refer to an extension of God within His creation, either for communication or action (i.e., doing something). Being an extension of Him, it is sometimes used figuratively to refer to God doing or saying something by way of His Spirit. But the terms are not exactly one-to-one interchangeable. You can say “the Spirit said” = “God said” but not “the spirit” = “God Himself.”
I wouldn’t say my voice was grieved, but I might say my soul was grieved, which is another way of saying I am grieved. I might also say my spirit is grieved, or my heart is grieved. All are figurative ways of saying the same thing, with a part of me put for “me” or “myself.”
Similarly, to say God’s spirit is grieved is another way of saying that God is grieved. And to say someone lied to the Holy Spirit is another way of saying that they lied to God. But not because it’s another name for God, but rather because it’s figurative – i.e. God’s spirit is put for God Himself, the way I would put “my soul” for myself. But it doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit is a separate person from God the Father.
If you have Bible software, it might help to look up “spirit of God,” “spirit of the LORD,” and “Holy Spirit” and see how they are used throughout the Bible. Also, Sean did a great paper on the Holy Spirit. You can see it here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11520224/What-is-the-Holy-Spirit
Sorry, I missed that question earlier.
I don’t think there is any indication that angels assisted God in the creation, although they were there and shouted for joy, according to Job 38:6-7. Another way of looking at Gen. 1:26 is that God was using a “plural of majesty.” Kings often refer to themselves as “we” or “us” in their royal capacity. Or it could be sort of a combination of both; God talking to Himself and the angels, saying as we might say in our vernacular, “Let’s do this!” In any case, most scholars agree that the plural doesn’t prove the pre-existence of the Son, or any “co-creator” for that matter, since the next verse strongly suggests that He worked alone when it says, “So God created man in his own image.” Also, God stressed that He created the universe by Himself in Isaiah 44:24.
Aaron, welcome to this blog.
I’d like to encourage you not to be merely satisfied with the existence of an answer. The page you’re referring to gives the classical Trinitarian explanations, complete with their extra-biblical lingo and fallacious reasoning.
I think the best would be to bring those points to the table, one by one, and exhaustively have them covered. I also encourage the posters on here not to digress from the matter presented. Let’s give Aaron a fair chance. Ray, is that ok with you?
By the way, Aaron, JP Holding is not a person you would like to be associated with, brother. I’ve never come across anyone calling himself a Christian with an attitude as pompous, as insulting and as unchristian as this man’s. He’s a spiritual swine you don’t want to waste your pearls on.
Hope to hear of you, brother,
Jaco
Aaron, I’d like to add to what Mark C. said on Genesis 1:26. Two Trinitarian commentators preferred an alternative explanation to the Trinitarian one.
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary says:
F.F. Bruce’s International Bible Commentary says:
Aaron, from other Hebrew sources and the Hebrew mindset of ancient times, that was the way the supreme one expressed his intentions. He would say something like, “Let us take a women into marriage,” and the king, if we was single, would announce his intentions to marry. Or, he would tell his court, “Let us declare war against king So-and-so,” by which he, once again expresses his intentions, but he is the actual instigator of an event.
Then, look at what the following verse say:
Notice, too, that Isaiah 45:5 reads, “I am Yahweh, and there is none else, there is no God [Elohim (plural noun)] besides Me [singular pronoun].” This is one verse where the use of a plural pronoun should be expected [i.e., there is no God besides Us] if such was meant, and Yahweh was a plurality of Gods.
Jaco
Aaron,
I think we should accept anyone as a Christian who believes that Jesus is the Son of God and the Christ. If they confess it, let’s assume they believe it.
I believe we shouldn’t wait till they take a “new member’s ” class
or make that a requirement for acceptance. Rather, a church should
accept people on their confession of Jesus as the Son of God and the Christ.
Some of these “new member’s ” classes seem as if the church leadership is asking people to approve their doctrine (often the trinity doctrine) as if they need man’s acceptance.
The acceptance of the trinity doctrine should not be a requirement
for acceptance as a Christian in my opinion. I believe I can support that with examples from the Bible. (the chariot rider from Ethiopia
and Philip from the book of Acts for example. Philip never told him that he first had to take a new member’s class on the trinity before he baptized him, did he? Then there was Cornelius, and other examples from the book of Acts.)
About being saved, I believe I have been often saved by God, but
what am I now saved from? The wrath to come? Doesn’t that depend on my behavior toward God in the future by faith which is his gift to me through Christ? So what am I saved from? In that sense, I don’t consider myself saved yet. I still hope for my salvation through faith in the gospel I have received. I hope to continue in it by the grace of God and the help which I receive of him by Jesus Christ.
Every church should have elders that can deal with people who promote wrong ideas or doctrines. They are to talk to that one first
alone, and if he doesn’t hear, then take another with him, and if he still will not hear, stand him before the church and rebuke him if he will not repent. Let him state his case if he has one, first in private, then with another brother, and even before the church. Then show him the sword. Every elder should have one. The head pastor should have one or he’s not a legitimate higher power. I trust that most head pastors are or can be if they really want to be.
Jaco,
In regards to post # 141, I will try to be fair though I have many passions about some things. I think it can be good to talk through
some of these things.
Xavier,
I see… So you are saying then that in Revelation 22:12 where God says he is coming soon, He is saying this in a figurative sense, and that in no way can this be referring to Jesus? Even though a couple verses later in verse 16, the dialogue continues with the words “I, Jesus?” You believe that God stops talking in verse 15 and Jesus starts talking in verse 16 even though there is nothing to indicate that this is the case? Even though the exact phrase “I am coming soon” is repeated a little later in verse 20 and is directly associated with Jesus coming soon? This seems to be a bit of a stretch.
I looked up a couple verses in the OT where you say people are referred to as “savior” and “deliverer.” I only looked at 3 or 4, but none assigned either title to any man. The verses talked about what a person was going to do to help Israel, or take the promised land, but they are not given the title “savior.” In fact, the verse you listed in Isaiah 43:11 seems to support my side, which says “I, even I, am the LORD and apart from me there is no savior.” By this context, it seems inappropriate to call Jesus “savior” if he is not God, which he is clearly called. You certainly would not call a sacrificial bull from the OT the savior. In both cases (if Jesus is not God), God is the one who does the saving from sins and is the only one deserving of the name Savior. As much as Jesus did on the earth by living a perfect life in obedience to God, you could not call him Savior, because God was the one who used Jesus’ sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world. Without God’s grace in reckoning us as righteous based on the sacrifice of Jesus, all Jesus work would be meaningless. Thus, Jesus (if he is not God) can only be called the Instrument of the Savior, not the Savior.
Mark,
Thanks for the references. I will be checking them out. I agree with you that God was the only one who created everything, which is why I was questioning your interpretation of Genesis.
Jaco,
I see the commentaries you mention, but it still doesn’t make sense to say “Let us…” knowing that you will be the only one doing it. Saying it was God pausing and such is only conjecture. In the same way, Mark mentioned our use of “Let’s do this!” That doesn’t correlate because I would only say that if I expected that others would be participating. In fact. this can only be seen as an expression inviting others to participate.
I am curious as to what ancient Hebrew sources you are referring to where the king uses the term “us.” Certainly they would not be Hebrew Kings. Nowhere in the Bible does a King of Israel refer to himself as “us.” I did a brief web search on the historical use of “us.” It was not common practice until the middle ages. You can’t use that as proof to why God said it. Conversely, the middle age kings probably adopted the term because God used it first.
I can see why the creation account does not say that “So God created man in ‘Their’ own image, and ‘They’ created them…” Because that could too easily indicate more than one Gods involved – which is not what the Trinity implies – One God with three facets.
Thanks for giving me a chance. (smile) However, I will be the first to admit that others have far more experience and study in proving the Trinity. As far JP Holding, I did see him express a carnal nature in some of his blog posts – and that is unfortunate. It would be a fallacy, however, to discredit his research and logic on the basis of his character.
Finally, Ray, though God does much to “save” us day to day, the Biblical state of being “saved” seems to refer to something that has happened (“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith” Ephesians 2:8). Even now, I am saved from the wrath to come because of the blood of Christ. I don’t have to add to that with my good performance.
Aaron, in the last chapter of Revelation you have God, Christ and the angel speaking at the same time it seems. Hard to distinguish when one stops, next one starts etc…But if we go by the use of the title in its Revelation context, where only the Lord God calls Himself “Alpha and Omega”, there is a strong case for the latter. Once again though, even if this particular title is ascribed to Jesus is does not mean he is the Lord God as well or any part thereof, as the Catholic Creeds suggest ["...very God of God..."].
The point I was trying to make regarding the “Savior” title [if we want to call it that] is that you find many such FIGURES throughout the OT [cp. Obad 1.21; Neh 9.27; Judg. 3.9; 2Kings 13.5; Isa 19.20].
Moses was certainly seen as a savior type figure, yet Isa 43.11 says YHWH is the only savior. Certainly YHWH God is working THROUGH these people, yet it does not mean their like some type of automaton [robot] that we should seem them as “tools” only. Certainly, they themselves are “saviors” in a secondary sense.
As Paul says, it is “God in Christ” [2Cor 5.19], not ‘God IS Christ’. Compare what Peter says at Pentecost, Acts 2.22ff.:
Aaron,
Because God has saved me in the past, I am saved today. Tomorrow’s salvation depends on what I have done in the past, what I do today, what I will do tomorrow, as well as what God has done in the past for me, what he does for me today, and what he will do for me tomorrow. He, I, and Jesus are in this thing together.
He has not left me out. He’s included me in this thing the Bible calls salvation. It’s how he designed it.
John 16:12
I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into
all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you.
Did Jesus just say that the Spirit of truth is the Father?
Did Jesus just say that the Spirit of truth is as the Father and does as the Father does, being the Spirit of God?
This is a great mystery isn’t it?
true or false?
God is the Spirit of truth, and so is his Spirit.
The confusion comes from the Greek pronouns. The words “he” and “him” are used because the Greek pronouns are masculine in gender. Greek, like many other languages, assigns gender to many inanimate objects, so the use of a masculine pronoun does not automatically make the noun a person. Since we don’t assign gender to inanimate objects in English, the masculine pronouns would be translated as “it” unless it was assumed that a person is referred to. Even in the King James Version, Romans 8:16 refers to “the spirit itself.” And the word translated “who” can also be translated “which,” as it is in a number of verses referring to “the spirit.”
False.
The Spirit of Truth is a phrase which, in context, refers to the Comforter, the gift which was first received on the day of Pentecost.
Aaron,
The challenge all of us face is understanding the world-view of a people whom we believe God revealed himself to. We are separated from their mind-set by some 3000 years. We are on the other end of many generations who have survived (if I can call it that) the influences of many a non-Hebrew nation, their mind-set, religion and all. So, understandably, we’ll have some difficulty in understanding some of that Hebrew culture we find peculiar of different from ours.
Plurality of majesty is one of them. You are right that we do find that in writings of the Middle Ages. But this is definitely not limited or isolated to the culture of that time. It is a well-known fact that plurality of majesty and plurality of deliberation were forms of speech employed by the ancients. Any source on the Ancient Near East will show you that. There are innumerable tablets, cilinders and reliefs indicating that the peoples of the Ancient Near East talked that way. Even later productions, like the Qur’an, indicate this.
With this in mind (not the other way around, namely with our world-view in mind) we need to look at Scripture.
To us it will be weird to speak of bloods (Gen. 4:10), blindnesses (Gen. 19:11), vengeances (Eze. 25:15, 17), etc. But that was the way the ancients spoke to emphasize the greatness or completeness or seriousness of those entities in their respective contexts. The very same goes for the name Elohim. It is a plural noun (indicating majesty) with singular agreement (accompanying verbs and pronouns in the singular) when referring to YHWH. No plurality of being of any sort, since our spiritual ancestors (faithful Hebrews) were strict monotheists.
Notice the comments by other scholars: (I quote this, not as proof per se, but to indicate to you how others have come to similar conclustions)
The Jewish Talmud states concerning God:
Donald Gowan remarks concerning Genesis 1.26 and 3.22:
This is appartently also the case in Genesis 11:7, 8 where Yahweh expresses his intention in the plural, but acts in the singular.
A lot has been written on this, and this is the conclusion even Trinitarians have come up with (as my initial references show).
You said
Aaron, by the same token does the issue of actual plurality in Genesis 1:26, 27 not prove the Trinity either. It amounts to polytheism, unless we allow the Bible in its Hebraic setting to clear it up for us.
You’re right, it is an ad hominem fallacy. The difference is, however, that his malicious and condecending demeanor dominates his reasoning and research so profoundly that he hardly measures up to good scholarly scrutiny. In this field our character does influence our credibility.
Hope this makes it a little clearer.
I’m looking forward to more of your concerns.
In Christ,
Jaco
Mark,
God is the Spirit of truth and so is his Spirit.
Since God is true and God is spirit, he is the Spirit of truth.
When the Spirit of truth (the Comforter which Jesus sent) came unto the apostles on the day of Pentecost, He (God) who is perfect in understanding was with them. God receives of the things of Jesus because Jesus is our perfect mediater. All that Jesus has is God’s and all that God has belongs to Jesus. All these things are distributed by the holy spirit as the spirit of God determines according to the will of God. All those things are gifts of God’s grace in Christ Jesus.
The spirit of God is subject to Christ, and also is subject to some extent to those who are born of that spirit.
When the angel of Jesus spoke in book of revelation, he was giving a message of Jesus. It seems to me that there are three who said in the book of Revelation, “I am Alpha and Omega..”, the Lord’s angel, the Lord Jesus, and God. I believe Jesus spoke to John through the angel.
When I read of God saying “Let us make man in our image..” in Genesis 1:26, I think of Jesus being with God. Together they made man in the image of God and his Son who was the express image of God himself at that time and still is the image of God today.
Ray, I am sure you have been quoted this passage before but here it goes:
Murray J. Harris in his book “Jesus as God” says this [in a footnote mind you]:
That would contradict Isaiah 44:24 – Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone.”
I support Rays views about Jesus being with God and creating the universe. My support text is John 1:1-18. It is a traditional trinitarian defense for the deity of Jesus. We haven’t talked about it here yet, and that’s okay. I’m enjoying reading Xavier and Josh talk about it at http://truthmattersradio.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/the-restitution-of-jesus-christ-with-servetus-the-evangelical/#comment-227
They talk about it in more depth than I could.
I just listened to another Truth Matters podcast today and had some questions as a result. I’ll bring them up here – they go along with our discussion.
As mentioned in the podcast, and earlier on this thread I think, one of the problems you seem to have with Jesus being God is the implication that we could not relate to him. The thought seems to be that we could relate to Jesus more if he was a mere man, struggling as we do, yet coming out perfect in the end. If he were God, so the thought goes, it would be too easy for him to live perfectly and he would not be a true example.
Let me probe a bit…
Did Jesus do the things he did by his own power? No, we are told in Acts “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.”
So even under the idea that Jesus was only a man, he was anointed in a way that no other person in history ever was, and a way that we can only hope for. That makes him an equally unfair example of how we should live.
This site places a very high priority on Jesus being an example. If God’s main purpose in Jesus was an example of right living, He didn’t have to go farther than giving us the Law. It is an extremely detailed message about who God is and what He requires.
(As a side note, as much as I am impressed by how Jesus conducted himself on the earth, I am equally encouraged by the examples of other figures in the Bible like David and Peter who sinned and failed, but still persisted and were used by God. I can relate much more to a person who has sinned than to someone who has not.)
But, I think we can all agree that the MAIN reason Jesus came was to be our sacrifice and offer us entrance into a new nature – not to be an example. He is an example though, but not of how to live in order to earn God’s favor. He is an example of how we should live as new creations under our new nature after receiving God’s favor by faith.
Even if the Trinitarian position leads to the notion that Jesus is not a fair example to follow, I would say that the Unitarian position seems to put an undo emphasis on our efforts in earning and sustaining our salvation. Certainly Jesus calls us to live in a specific manner and to persist in doing so until the end, but not as a means of obtaining our new nature. An example would be like saying that God has purchased us a super car that we could never afford if we worked every second of our life. But now that we have the car, God wants us to learn how to drive it properly and make some good use of it. Our attempts at being good drivers don’t earn us the car, they just ensures that we get the most out of it.
Aaron, I think scripture teaches us that in order to “earn God’s favor” [resulting in eternal life] we must follow the example of the “earthly Jesus” and live as he lived. Just as he said [Jn 13.15] and others taught:
Ray, brother, what is wrong with the following analogy:
and
I’d like to hear from you
Aaron, brother
Firstly no-one, except many Trinitarians who sometimes misrepresent us, calls or believes Jesus to be a mere man. He was the greatest man who ever lived. He is the Christian’s hero!
Secondly, the fact that Jesus would be in a class altogether different from ours, had he been God, is only an eventual implication of the Trinity. It is definitely not the sole, nor the best Scriptural refutation of the Trinity. Yes, he did have spirit beyond what any man ever had (Joh. 3:34). But, there were times when he was tested and had to choose between sin or obedience (Mt. 4:1-11) even on the cross, when God had forsaken him (Mt. 27:46). These were times when Jesus maintained perfect integrity as a human to such an extend that he could be called the “one who has been tested in all respects like ourselves, but without sin.” (Heb. 4:15). This puts him in the league of humanity and completely out of the league of God (Jas. 1:13-15).
You are correct that we have so many examples of faithfulness from others in the past (Heb. 11), yet, the perfect example we can draw strenth from is our King, the Messiah (Heb. 12:1-3, 1 Pet. 2:21) not to earn salvation, but to offer God our best.
Aaron, Joh. 1:1-18 contains so much. Whole volumes have been written on only those few verses. It would be better for you to quote the verses you believe prove the Trinity and we can discuss those.
Appreciating your interest,
Jaco
Mark,
In understanding that Jesus was with God from the beginning and that God created all things through him, in no way contradicts Isaiah 44:24.
Let’s look at it again.
Isaiah 44:24
Thus saith the Lord thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that made all things, that spread out the heavens alone, and stretched out the earth by myself.
God lets us know here that he created all that is without peer or equal. God tells us here that he did not need to depend on anyone
else in order for him to make the earth. He lets us know here that he did it by his own power without having to depend on anyone else. God makes it known here that he did this by his own counsel
and wisdom, not having any other that he had to rely upon, or that
he had to get approval from.
This in no way contradicts Colossians 1:13-20.
We must get to know him who is the Lord of the word.
Now, when I say that God has no equal, unless one knows me and how I say things, one might wrongfuly conclude that I say that
Jesus is not in any way equal with God, but I did not say that.
Jaco,
I don’t think you need my help to know that there is much wrong with your analagies in #157.
The main problem seems to be that you looked at some things in a litteral perspective, not giving allegory (the setting forth of one thing in the place of another) it’s place.
God often uses allegory for instruction, and so did Jesus. Does that mean that Jesus is God? He is in a sense isn’t he? If people can be salt, can’t Jesus be God?
Jaco,
I suppose we could say that Paul was in a sense the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, for when he lived during his ministry, he lived as Christ, so much so that he said of his own manner of life, that for him to live is Christ.
Those that do live in this world after the manner of Christ are in this world as he is. (see I John 4:17)
I didn’t say Isaiah 44:24 contradicts Col. 1:13-20. I said it contradicts your statement of Jesus being with God in the beginning, and that “Together they made man in the image of God.” That is not what Colossians says either. When you carefully examine the Greek prepositions, as well as the context, Colossians is saying that Jesus is the whole reason for creation. The following is from my web site article on Who Is Messiah:
Also, if Jesus having glory with God from the beginning means he literally existed before creation, then so did we. Ephesians 1:4 says that God has “chosen us in him before the foundation of the world.” Clearly it refers to God’s foreknowledge and His plan.
Ray,
where matters of truth are concerned we need to be consistent in our interpretation of evidence. Many a Christian group believe whatever their leader tells them to and then go about looking for proof in Scripture regardless of the interpretive and hermeneutical inconsistencies they employ to do so. Suchlike ones cannot be taken seriously, for they use Scripture to say what they want it to say.
You said:
and then,
Which is it? Your reasoning amounts to “No True Scotsman” fallacy. The way it stands here, anything can be proven true! Say whatever you want to and blame it on allegory. I needn’t say that very quickly you’ll sit with a bunch of doctrinal riffraff and have all the “proofs” you need for it.
So, brother, I’m asking you again: Is my reasoning in msg #157 correct the way it’s laid out? Yay or nay?
We’ll take it further from there
Your brother, Jaco
Even by your forced translation of Colossians 1:15-18 where you choose the preposition that fits your theology the best – it still points to Christ’s deity.
“In Him were all things created…” If this doesn’t mean that he is the origin of creation, what could this possibly mean?
“Created through him … or for him” So, everything in the universe was created for one single man? (“Yes, besides being created for God” – you might say.) But that qualifier isn’t here. Your interpretation says it was all created for Jesus (a man) and not for God.
What can verse 17 mean then – “and in him all things hold together?” This sounds exactly like it is saying that without Jesus, the whole universe would implode or explode and cease to be. A man is keeping the stars in proper alignment and keeps gravity doing it’s job? How did the universe survive before Jesus was born?
Talk about believing exactly what the Bible says…
Aaron, do you agree that the whole of the Genesis creation was made for one single man, Adam?
If so, what is so hard about believing that the New Creation, of which Col 1.15-20 & first chapters of Hebrews refers to [Heb 2.5, "For it was not to angels that God subjected the habitable WORLD OF THE FUTURE, of which we are speaking." AB] comes about and is “held together” by the 2nd Adam?
Note: that the first [Genesis] creation was “held together” [if you will] by the 1st Adam’s obedience to YHWH. Since now its all “subjected to futility”:
Aaron,
There is no dilemma there. It is Scripture who speaks to us, telling us that Jesus THE MAN would receive the lordship necessary to govern the new creation.
What is more, we as human sons of God will share in the inheritance,
Aaron, some of this might be very new and very confusing. I encourage you to maintain a praying attitude, brother, and remember that anything new is confusing at first. Anything confusing stays confusing, whether it’s new or old.
In hope,
Jaco
If anything, this information should provide you with the “health giving [sound] words [doctrine] of our Lord Jesus Christ…teaching that accords [aligns] with godliness” [1Tim 6.13; cp. 1 Tim 1:10,2 Tim 4:3; 1:13,Titus 1:13,2:2].
This is attained via a direct revelation of God the Father [Mat 16.14f.] for anyone of humble heart and seeker of truth. Marking our faith as the true, practical and “pure religion” [cp. Jam. 1.26-27].
Mark,
If you believe Isaiah 44:24 does not contradicts Colossians 1:13-20, then you must believe that Jesus was with God in the beginning, otherwise you are not making sense.
Isaiah 44:24 does not reveal much about the mystery of Christ as it is revealed in Colossians 1, but does not contradict it.
Jaco, If you can not understand allegory and how words are used in allegory you will not understand much of anything. You really have to get that to gain understanding.
There is a very litteral sense in which the apostle Paul is not Jesus and never will be.
There is also a sense in which he very much was as Christ was in this world. His manner of life was Christ. In a sense we can say that Paul was the suffering servant which the scriptures use to describe Christ.
These things are very real and are true.
Isaiah 53 does not refer to Christ only, as all Christians in some measure identify with the life of Jesus. That is why we can say that the apostle Paul was in a sense that suffering servant of Isaiah 53.
There are times in my life when I see that I too have been such in some measure, because of my identity in Christ.
I will say again Jaco, that the problem with your analagies in #157 stem from taking what is litteral and not understanding allegory, and taking that which is allegory and considering it to be litteral.
Mark,
Because all was created by Jesus Christ as he was with God in the beginning, all was created through him by God. The power of God was at work through Jesus in the beginning. The creation exists because of Jesus. By him, God created it all. God worked through Jesus in the creation of the world. He and God did it together.
God created all things for Jesus his Son. Jesus created all by the power of God, for God. God created through Jesus, for Jesus. Jesus created all by God, for God.
Ray
you do understand that you read from corrupt translations therefore you can not tell who is being spoken of or who is speaking.
Who God uses in his plan to redeem mankind doesnt change that human into a pre-existent being because it is only the power of God that pre-existed. Jesus only had what God gave him and could do nothing on his own without it
Isaiah
44:24 Thus saith ,YHWH thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am YHWH that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
Ray
Here is a translation with proper translations for God and Jesus so you can know who the lord is that is being spoken of.
http://www.wordofyah.org/scriptures/index.html
Robert,
Jesus is the power of God which did exist before he was born in the flesh.
Have you never properly read Colossians 1:13-19?
Who (God) hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated into the kingdom of his dear Son (Jesus);
In whom (Jesus) we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Who (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God (The Father), the firstborn (Jesus) of every creature:
For by him (Jesus) 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 (Jesus), and for him (Jesus):
And he (Jesus) is before all things, and by him (Jesus) all things consist.
And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church: who (Jesus) is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he (Jesus) might have the preeminence.
For it pleased the Father (God) that in him (Jesus) shold all the fullness dwell:
Can you follow the pronouns through the mystery which Paul wrote about in few words, in Ephesians chapter 1?
When God wants to talk to Israel about his sovereignty he is able to do so without the mention of his Son who was with him. And so he did in Isaiah 45:24.
By himself, God created all that is, through his Son Jesus. This mystery of the creation by Jesus was hidden but was later revealed to the apostle Paul.
Even though Jesus was active with God in the creation of the world,
God is still able to declare his sovereignty and keep hidden his mystery about Jesus.
No man is able to be Lord over the word of God and put God under something he said by misunderstanding what he said, or why he said it, or how he said it, rather, men will be put under the authority of God as concerning his word.
Men will not put God under their own authority in the day of judgment.
Ok Ray
you have proved it just isnt the translations you read , it is for most part the problems with your translations of translations.
For 30 years Jesus walked the earth without any power at all, but if he was the power than why didnt he use that power before his baptism. why didnt this loving person heal the sick before that. it was all around him.
IT WAS BECAUSE HE HADNT RECEIVED IT YET!!!!!!!!!!
Not only did he not pre exist His birth, the power he posessed didnt pre exist his baptism
Robert,
Though Jesus had not yet received the power of the holy spirit to do the great works that he did until his baptism, he had been the power of God that created the universe.
I believe God could say to me, “Ray, I by myself saved you. I did that alone.”
I believe I can receive that from God because unless he decides to save me, not even Jesus could save me. Unless God decides to save a man, not even a perfect Messiah with all the power of God could do it.
But, thanks be to God that he so loved me that he sent his Son Jesus to save me.
What does the word “For” show us in Colossians 1:16?
It shows us that that one reason Paul called Jesus “the image of the invisible God”, is because by him all things were created.
Ray
correct translation is “in him” not “by him”.
you read from a influence translation not a literal translation
Colossians
16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;
For the full article visit: http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/2009/11/colossians-116-misleading-text-in.html
Xavier,
It seems to me what you are saying is misleading.
Can we see a bird? If so, then Colossians 1 tells us it exists because of Jesus and is for his use in giving glory to God.
Not even a sparrow falls without God taking notice.
Ray
Your’re using allegory as a convenient way out to prove whatever you want to. That’s the problem with your analogies. You have no fixed hermeneutical interpretation structure hence your inconsistent and novel ideas.
The Suffering Servant is Jesus the Messiah only. If certain events in my life remind me of what Jesus went through, that prophecy doesn’t suddenly reach fulfillment in me as The Suffering Servant. Same goes with Satan. A human imitating Satan doesn’t make that human The Satan, The Original Devil. You like to play allegory as your wild card. In fact, this is called metaphor. It is a figure of speech which, other than your interpretations, has a fixed and predictable structure.
So, God, the Spirit who is Holy is not the same as the gift, holy spirit. To equate the two amounts to fallacy of equivocation. Had the Universe been designed on the logic you employ, it most certainly would not have survived.
Why not use allegory here, Ray? Because it doesn’t fit your theology? Why the inconsistency? Everyone can see it. All you’ve done in all your posts on this topic is prooftexting. It has been eisegesis all the way through.
Who on earth told you this??? Where is Jesus’ creatorship the subject of the Sacred Mystery? Where do you read this???
The difference is, Ray, GOD DOESN’T SAY THIS. He said in so many words that He saved THROUGH THE MESSIAH. (Jud. 25) This is not the case with creation. You’re equivocating again, and this unnecessarily hampers proper reasoning on Scripture. Start comparing apples to apples.
Isaiah himself lived as the suffering servant of God, even as King David. They both saw things concerning the Messiah through their own lives here upon this earth.
Isaiah 53 is all about Jesus, and Jesus is not only about himself. In him all things consist, and we by him.
Those who have lived as Jesus (the suffering servant of God) partake of not only his sufferings but also of his glory, being a part of him by faith in God.
God saved me by himself alone, for in Jesus there was nothing but
God himself that offered unto me his saving grace.
Ray
so what have you done to show you accept Gods saving grace.
have you stopped worshiping other gods
have you stopped worshiping idols
have you used his laws(morals) as your school master.
throughout the NT people did these things and you think them doing them and them being called saved applies to you now.
JUST WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR GOD FOR HIM TO SAVE YOU?
Robert,
I received Jesus.
Ray
while that is very important, there is more to being saved than just that.
But just how did you receive him?
Did you set him as your example?
Do you claim the deeds of early christians as your own?
Ray, what do you mean “misleading”? a bird in Col 1??
what are you on about bud?
Robert,
I claim the deeds of many a sinner. Just as the apostle Paul had said about his own condition, “O wretched man that I am.” That was my condition. It was then that I remembered Jesus and the cross. As the words of the song go, “I was there when he saved me. I was there when he forgave me. I was there when it happened, so I guess I, ought ‘o know.” (see the movie Walk The Line, the story of Johnny Cash)
What did you do when you were saved?
Xavier,
I’m on on Colossians 1:16, which includes animals and birds.
Ray, what does that have to do with anything? Address specific issues you may have, don’t just make pithy comments and obliviate [as O'Reilly might say]
“What did you do when you were saved? ”
Ray
Just when have i ever claimed to be saved YET.
Being saved is a lifelong process not just something you can claim.
I will know for sure that i am saved when i stand before God and Jesus professes he knows me to His God.
Till then i will try to follows the ways of God and the testamony of Jesus with all my human ability.
you chose the path most taken that is easy which is the deception of satan.
This “once saved always saved” belief reminds me of a story…
Are we allowed into the White House because we stand at the gates and say that we know the President, therefore, they would let us in?
OR…
Do we enter the White House because when we stand at the gates the President himself comes out to greet us, orders for the gates to be opened and allows us to come into his home?
What interesting discussions…
I’m sorry Xavier, but I don’t see how Colossians 1:15-17 refers to the new creation. I’ll have to check out other passages specifically talking about the new creation and see if there are any similarities. I don’t think you can interpret this section by one verse in Hebrews.
Besides, I would think that the past tense “created” should be enough. It doesn’t say “will create.” I believe all talk of the new creation is expressed in future tenses.
I think what Ray was getting at is that it says Jesus created ALL things – both visible and invisible – and that birds are one of the visible things that God created through Jesus.
Also, since you hold to the opinion that the Kingdom of God is strictly a visible earthly kindgom, what are these “invisible” things the verse is talking about?
If verse 16 actually says “For IN him all things were created,” what then does that actually mean?
I wouldn’t say that the world was created for Adam. Hebrews 2:10 says that everything exists for God. Adam was created to be a steward of God’s creation. There is a difference. Creation was not given to Adam to have as his own, it was put in Adam’s possession to be a steward of it – all to the purpose of God’s glory.
I heard it recently said that you should never base a major doctrinal issue on words that come after Greek prepositions because Greek prepositions can have so many different meanings.
I think it would be good to have a discussion on what it means to be saved and how we receive salvation. After the true identity of Jesus, I think that’s an issue of top importance.
Robert,
You said, “Till then i will try to follows the ways of God and the testamony of Jesus with all my human ability”
That’s a tough place to put your confidence. Do you have what it takes to follow God in your human ability? Are you trusting in your ability to obey to receive salvation? Let me remind you of Ephesians 2:8 “For it is by grace you HAVE BEEN saved (past event), through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast.” If there was some work of ours that could bring us salvation, we would be able to boast about it. Wasn’t the purpose of the Law to show us that we could not earn God’s favor by our actions? Didn’t Jesus come to pay the penalty for our sins? With the the penalty paid for, what wall is there left between God and man? Only our believe that what Jesus did was effective for our redemption. As Jesus said, “It is finished.”
In addition, Paul says in Galations 3:2-3 that God gave his Spirit (and through the Spirit our new nature) not by observing rules but by believing what was heard. He goes on to ask “”After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?” Our journey with God and his Kingdom started by believing and continues by believing.
Aaron, if I [and many others on here] am mistaken and Col 1.15f. refers to the Genesis creation, then that would contradict the clear OT references which says “in the beginning God [singular] created the heavens and the earth” by Himself [Gen 1.1]. Jesus testifies to this simple fact when he says that “from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female’” [Mar 10.6; cp. 13.9; Gen 1:27; 2:18,21-23,5:2; Mat 19.4; Rom 1.25].
Just because the KOG is an earthly, visible one, doesn’t take away from the fact that the invisible, spiritual world is subject to the visible one. Hebrews 1:7 quotes Ps. 104:4 ["makes his messengers winds"] from the Greek Septuagint, with the term “messengers” (Hb. mal’akim) translated as “angels” (Gk. angeloi); reinforcing the argument that just as Jesus is superior to the angels, for the Psalmist they served the same function for people of God [cp. 1Pe 3.21-22].
The following is from Greg Deuble’s ‘They Never told me this in Church’, p 229-230. Forgive me for the extensive quote but I feel its worth your time to read it:
“For it is by grace you HAVE BEEN saved (past event), through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast.”
Aaron
The offer of grace comes from God and is something that cant be earned by mankind and without it none can be saved.
My human ability and everyones is sufficent to follow Gods ways ,but we cant be perfect without the Holy spirit.
God wants us to be perfect but offers us grace if we fall short.
but ignoring Gods ways is refusing Gods grace because that is dead faith.
Robert, I also do not consider myself yet saved, for I hope for my salvation to come in Christ Jesus, yet I can not deny that I have been saved from many a sin.
Have you ever been saved from sin? When you found youself in sin,
what did you do?
Colossians 1:16
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:
This verse is speaking of Jesus through whom God created all things that we see or don’t see which are in heaven and earth.
People who confess such are not on any substance that is of this world or is corrupt which might cause them to agree with this writing of the apostle Paul.
Anyone who says that this verse does not include animals or birds
is misleading himself and anyone else who is willing to listen to him.
Because God created all things by Jesus as he was in God and God in him, we say that God created all things that are, whether they be visible or invisible, in heaven or in earth, through Jesus.
By Jesus, through Jesus, in Jesus, and for Jesus, God created all things as he was in Jesus and Jesus was in him, creating all things by, for, through, and in God.
As God did all for Jesus, Jesus did all for God. As God was in Christ, Christ was in God. As God worked through Christ, Christ worked through God. As all was created by Jesus, Jesus created all by God.
This is a part of the mystery of Christ that was revealed to the apostle Paul.
“Have you ever been saved from sin? When you found youself in sin,
what did you do?”
First thing is Jesus’ death saved me from the penalty of all sin nailing it to the tree
second Jesus’ testamony has help me identify just what sin is because He lived a life without sin which could only be defined by the Royal law God commanded personally(spoke) to the people if they wanted to be children of God.
so yes i have over the past year been saved from sin through faith in the testamony of Jesus and the faith that Gods morals was made known for mankind to live by.
before that i was following the deception of satan by following tradition that really wasnt based on the Word of God as written in the bible and also in my heart.
Ok,
the verse goes on to say:
So, to follow the reasoning that “all things” mean created things, Jesus’ sacrificial death enables not only humans being reconciled to God, but also animals, birds, reptiles, demons, Satan, dinosaurs…
According to this understanding the earth will soon be filled with animals and plants and ol’ Satan, all living for ever as one big happy family!!!
(Group hug!!!)
Jaco
It’s not difficult to understand how it is that God created all things by himself alone, once we understand that Jesus was with him and that there was nothing in Jesus but God himself.
It was God himself working through Christ that was the power that made all that is.
God knows how to hide a mystery and how to reveal it at the time of his revealing. He does it legaly. He doesn’t violate righteousness
when he keeps something hidden, nor does he violate what he has said when he reveals it.
I remember when I asked Dean Braxton if he saw any animals in heaven. (It was this man that had died and went to heaven and was sent back to give his testimony of the things he saw, for the Lord Jesus sent him back. According to his medical records, he was
in cardiac arrest for an hour and forty five minutes. His book is out now and may be found by seaching out his name on the internet.)
Immediately his response was, “They’re coming in all the time.” and
“There are two verses.” So I later gave him the two verses I had about this, the same which I had told my cat when she was alive with me. We were very close.
When she was gone, It was necessary for me to ask God to tell her about all the things I had done where I had let her down, not doing what I should have for her to save her life. It was necessary
for me to do that before the burdens were lifted. Thus, I realized that cats do go to be in contact with the Lord.
God is going to restore all of his creation and by Jesus Christ, all that will be restored. I don’t know if it all will be, but that which is willing to be restored to God by him, he is able to restore to God by him.
When God created all by Jesus Christ, it seems to me that there was nothing in Christ that was not of God. We see so many kinds of creatures in this world and all of them show us a wonderful work of the divine creator.
I’ve seen some artwork of man when he makes some kind of creature in his artistic ability, through his imagination. When I looked at some of that I thought that it’s difficult to imagine that man was once in the image of God (or Image Of God, if you prefer) as he had made him.
When man was once in the image of God (in Christ) he must have had a wonderful creative ability in designing things. The things we have today that work and work well must have had the interaction of God in Christ, in man, in order for those things to have sucessfully been made.
Behind every good discovery, every work of value, and every beneficial service is God, and in God is Christ Jesus. In every favorable thing that is, there can be found by someone, the recognition of the handiwork of our creator. The whole earth is full of his glory. In recognition of this there is healing for the mind.
God is going to reclaim the land and he will do it through that which is his. The whole creation waits for this manifestation of God
which will be done through his Church in Christ Jesus.
The earth is his and everyone in it (see Psalm 25:1) and those that are truly his will be his agents for change to bring about the things of the kingdom that is both here and is coming.
Ray,
I thank God that I don’t need you to help me understand Scripture. One of these days you’ll look for divine guidance in Harry Potter movies. Your horrendous over-generalising makes the world’s greatest logicians turn in their graves…and that by using God’s Word recklessly…what a shame.
Jaco,
you are free to disagree with Ray, but please do so respectfully
thank you
My last post was rather harsh. I retract what I said.
Sorry for that, Sean. Forgive me, Ray.
Jaco
Scripture says,
But as we know, the Lord Jesus himself was more often than not VERY HARSH towards those who opposed who he was and his Kingdom message [Lu 3.7; Matt 12:34; 23].
Xavier
While i agree with you about Jesus’ harshness which he was not the only one to be harsh, i also understand the policy was needed on this website. it was long needed to hold people accountable and was needed to protect those who come here to learn. now everyone is held by the same rules.
the best thing to do is to just ignore and let other people decide to ignore or agree if they want.
you would be very right to approach someone this way, but not publicly
robert, I do not think the teaching you have in mind ["go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone", Mat 18.15] applies in this case due to the nature of the envrionment we’re dealing with. Then again, I guess people can exchange personal emails etc., but still be risky.
A better scriptural application might be something like exposing “unfruitful works of darkness” [Eph 5.11] “if your brother sins rebuke him” [Lu 17.3] since “better is open rebuke than hidden love” [Pro 27.5].
NOTE: Cephas very public exhortation of Peter in Gal 2.
Xavier
well websites where you dont know who you are addressing are not addressed in scriptures.
i agree with the rules here while still agreeing with you. what good is the truth if you have alienated everyone who would of listen to you.
the fact is most people just ignore especially after trying to show their errors repeatably. this has been done for everyone here not just a few.
Xavier,
Thanks for the quotation. It actually did bring some clarity to what you believe.
You are correct. If Jesus was just a man and Colossians 1:15ff describes the creation of the universe, then that would contradict Genesis 1 and other verses. But, if Jesus is God then the verses are in perfect harmony with Genesis 1. The commentator you quoted seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. First he says it’s not talking about the Genesis creation, and then later he says that the end of verse 16 really says that Jesus was the reason all things were created – speaking of the Genesis creation. Which is it?
I don’t want to go round and round in circles over the passage. Even if you take the Greek prepositions to mean “in him” or “above all things” – it still describes a person who is without equal and very central in the purpose of God both present and past. A question may be – is it more rational to believe that Jesus could be God and man – thus making all these phrases about Jesus easily possible? or is it more rational to believe that miracle upon unequivocal miracle has given a man all this power and recognition and a place next to God’s right hand? On that note, I was reading some interesting Jewish thoughts on if they believed a man could sit at God’s right hand. These are people who don’t believe Jesus is the messiah. The consensus is that a man could not sit at God’s right hand. (I’m sorry to be so vague, and I would provide the web reference if I knew it.)
Jaco,
No thanks to such a group hug. Heh heh. I never saw verse 20 like that. What do you take it to mean? I think both of our understandings of “all things” don’t make much sense in this verse. If the “all things” is a hierarchy of rulers both angelic and human, what does it mean to reconcile them through the cross. This would indicate that there were angels that were at enmity with God and were “saved” by Jesus death. This is an interesting verse that deserves looking into.
Jaco, I accept your apology. I’ve found myself becoming more flexible as God begins to move me. It isn’t always a comfortable thing. At times it is risky. Sometimes I make mistakes. Whenever a man repents, he finds himself back to the top. Repentance also opens a door to heaven for others.
Aaron, I do not see where the quote I used contradicts itself by saying that the passage is simply in reference to the New Creation [cp. "the future world to come", Heb 2.5] and how the “all things” [ta panta] will come into being “in Christ”:
He will call out to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.’ And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth…For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren…And we eagerly await a Savior from the heavens, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body. [Psalm 89:26-27; Rom 8.29; Phil 3.20-21]
All “these phrases” make no sense if we’re dealing with a preexistent “God-Man”, Aaron. Think about it, so God became a human being so He could be tempted, suffer, die and come back to life?? How insanely contradictory is it but UNscriptural with but the scantest of biblical evidence [Jn 1.1; 20:28...same old verses]!
Yes, its more rational AND BIBLICAL to see Jesus as who he is and not what some people have turned him into. The only human Son of the Living God [Mat 16.16], who overcame all in supreme subjection and love to his “one true God” and Father [Jn 17.3; 20.17]. Because of this, he HAS BEEN GIVEN [viz. by his inherent "nature"] the supreme place of position at the “right hand of Power” [Ps 110.1; Mar 16.19; Heb 1.3;].
And yes, SOME Jews DID not and presently DO not accept Jesus as the prophesized Messiah, future ruler of God’s eternal, coming Kingdom on earth. But even they were familiar with Daniel’s prophetic vision of “one like a son of Man coming in the clouds” and being seated at the right hand of YHWH [Dan 7]. Hence the reason why they sought to kill Jesus, because he identified himself as that “heavenly, divine”, FUTURE figure [Mat 26.57-68].
Its funny though, when you think about it, how Trinitarians always believe what the doubters said about the Lord Jesus more than those who believed [cf. Mat 16.16; Jn 10.33 "you claim to be God"].
Aaron,
I know this was for Jaco but couldn’t help chipping in.
According to passages such as Rom 8.18-30 “the whole of creation” awaits a type of “reconciliation” [restoration]. Paul also says that the current “god of this world” is Satan [2Cor 4.4]. As a result “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” [Eph 6.12].
The Bible is clear that all those who join this “evil empire” [if you will] will be destroyed, NOT SAVED! Humans and angels alike will be thrown in the “lake of fire” [Rev 20.14-15]. SO it is clear, that “angels that were in enmity with God” will not be saved:
Aaron,
I was actually being facetious…Col. 1:15-20 speaks of the “all things” of which Jesus is the preeminent or firstborn one. Those who believe in the pre-human existence of Christ, some Unitarians included, take this to mean the literal creation of which Jesus was the first direction creation by God. But, you see, if we take this meaning through to verse 20, it doesn’t hold up (as can be seen in my post #197). Then the eschatological “all things” fits in perfectly. Then we see that Paul was rather referring to the “all things” of the new creation. The other explanation just turns out to be absurd.
What do you say?
Jaco
Xavier,
The part of the quote I mentioned is this:
“Reputable Greek scholars such as J.H. Moulton in Grammar of New Testament Greek say that Colossians 1:16 should be rendered “for because of him [Jesus].” The Expositor’s Greek Commentary says on this verse: “en auto: This does not mean ‘by him.’” By wisdom,
which later “became” Christ Jesus, all things were created. This is
simply to say that Jesus is the reason for creation. The end of verse
16 says as much again: “all things have been created through him
and for him,” that is, with a view to him.”
I guess I shouldn’t have said that the author was speaking out of both sides of his mouth, because here he is quoting another scholar. But this scholar is commenting on this verse as pertaining to the original creation.
Regarding the words Jesus opposition, such as in John 10:10 — shouldn’t we take some stock into how the Jews received Jesus’ words? Since they were truly familiar with language of the day? I know you find it hard to believe that Jesus ever claimed to be God, but why did they believe he claimed it who knew the language so well?
Oops – I lost internet connection there for a minute.
I meant my last question to be: why did the Jews who understood the significance of what Jesus was saying on a level that we are far removed from – believe Jesus was claiming to be God?
I’m sure you got the gist of what I was getting at.
I apologize – I realize I have made some blanket statments like “isn’t it more rational to believe such and such?” Like Jaco said, we should just deal with what scripture say and not speak in generalities. The Bible is true even if it didn’t make sense to us. The Bible could say that salvation comes when we flap our arms like a chicken. It may not make sense, but if the Bible says it, then by golly I’ll be flapping. Let me ask you Xavier – doesn’t it only take one scripture to explicity or implicitly say that Jesus is God for us to believe it? I don’t think the number of scriptures is important – it only takes one for it to be truth. (I know you’re going to ask me for that one verse, eh?)
Jaco,
I understood your facetiousness. I was just wondering what you take verse 20 to mean under your understanding of what “all things” means. Can you lay out a little clearer what is meant by the “eschatological all things?” I’m still not up on all the theological terminology. And how are these things understood to be reconciled through the blood of the cross? Also, does it makes sense to you for these verses to use past tense phrases like “were created” and “have been created” if it is referring to a new creation that hasn’t happened yet?
Xavier,
I agree that deviant angels won’t be saved, but will face wrath. I also understand the reconcilliation of sorts as described in Romans 8. I also would relate this back to the reconciliation being described in verse 20. But, as you mentioned, Romans talks of “the whole of creation” – whereas I thought you believe Colossians 1:15ff to be referring to something other than all of creation. Wouldn’t your use of Romans 8 negate your view of the Colossians verses?
Aaron, the “Jews” [especially in Gospel of John] are always pictured as opponents to Jesus and his sayings. I do no think we should take any “stock” when it comes to their FALSE accusations of Jesus. They range from calling him a liar, sinner, and demon. So more often than time, they got everything about Jesus wrong, even though they were on that same Hebraic, “level” of understanding.
The Trinity has to be clearly defined not implied, Aaron. Note how NT writers deal with the “problem” of Torah time and time again. Or how Jesus is clearly defined [via repetition] that he is Messiah, Son of God. Or how scripture stresses the personal singularity of God [YHWH], the Father as one!
I think Romans 8 is referring to the present, fallen creation. Col. 1 is referring to the new, coming Creation. Simple.
Aaron,
It seems to me that there were Jews who accused Jesus of claiming to be God, but they did not believe that he was. It was their opportunity to twist around the things he did say so as to
obscure the truth, have their carnal fun, and try to cause him to appear to men to be foolish, which seems to be what men sometimes do to cause others to think they are wise.
I’ve never seen Jesus claim to be God in the scripture. I’ve read about him talking to the Jews about being the Son of God and making reference to God as his Father. He talked about how he
came down from heaven, how he is the bread of life, how men must eat his flesh, how we must be taught of God, how we must believe on him, how he will ascend to heaven where he was before, how he knows God and came from him, how God sent him,
how we must come to him and drink, how he is the light of the world, how God bears witness of him, how he does not seek his own glory, how Abraham looked forward to his day, how Abraham saw
his day, and how presently Jesus himself exists.
And some picked up stones to kill him as if he was telling them that he lived before Abraham. However, he was telling them that Abraham saw his day, not that he lived before Abraham.
I do believe Jesus was alive before Abraham, but he was not making that claim when he told of how Abraham saw his day.
In saying that he came down from heaven, that God is his Father,
that God sent him, that he came into this world, these things indicate that he was alive and with God previously, but I see no indication that Jesus claimed to be God. Rather, he always told of how he is the Son of God and that God is his Father. That is an important part of the gospel, and as I’ve noticed in the past, with
Jesus it’s always about the gospel.
If Jesus made no emphasis about being God, I don’t think I should either.
Yet, because of who Jesus is, and what Jesus is, I will make connections between him and God. I will compare him with God and find out that they are the same. I will also find a distinction between him and God, and I will attempt to abide in the truth.
Xavier is right about these Jews. We should examine closely their resume, for though a man have linguistic ability (he might even speak in tongues) and have not charity, he is nothing.
- they judged according to appearances (John 7:24, John 8:15)
-they did not have the holy spirit (John 7:39)
-they did not know Jesus nor his Father (John 8:19)
-they understood him not (John 8:27)
Their experience in this world goes on and on. In all these things they remind me of my past. But thanks be to God because he began a good work in me. I trust he will continue to perform it unto the coming of the Lord Jesus, if I am willing.
In this world of vanity we don’t have to listen to every man in a jumpsuit. There are those who are accepted by men who hold positions of authority and are introduced to the crowd and suddenly they appear on a stage. Then there are jumpsuits that
say on the back, “Property Of Jesus”, written by reproofs of the Lord, while they laid on their beds of languishing, the shed blood
causing the stripes to appear which begins to result in obedience.
Doesn’t it seem like fun sometimes to see the faults of others?
But what is the cause of this lust for blood?
We were all at one time just like them.
Aaron, this might be somewhat new for you. It has to do with eschatological reality. This means that the eschatos, or end-time events are experienced as real or present. We thus live as a new creation, as what we will be as if we’re being it now. This is not a foreign thought. Of all the Bible writers, I think the Apostle John uses this realm of thought the most. Technically it is often expressed as a double entendre or amphibologia (double talk). To use one notion or concept with double application. Paul also uses it excellently in his writings (Rom. 8, Col. 1, for instance.) For example, the Genesis account uses the concept of light entering the realm of God’s original creation. 2 Cor. 4:6 uses this notion as the Word being realised in flesh and Jesus being the light of God’s new creation. FF Bruce in his “The Gospel of John” page 28, 29 says:
Compare the double meaning of Abraham’s sacrifice attempt of Isaac. Read Heb 11:17-19
This is what I mean by “all things” in the eschatological sense or proleptic sence. All things as they pertain to the things belonging to the new creation. Of these Jesus is the champion or archegos (Heb. 12:1, 2). All these things will have been the things ransomed by Jesus, belonging to the age to come.
“Have been” is fitting in that what Jesus did on earth as good as fulfilled what God intended to finally realise in the end. There is a certain finality, certainty and definitivity in what Christ’s work achieves with the new creation.
This whole proleptic understanding of the new creation was something I also only recently had to come to grips with. As a former Watchtower Witness this concept had been greatly obscured from me due the Watchtower’s amateutish understanding of Scripture and their novel theology. I believe in time you’ll grasp it as well.
In Christ,
Jaco
Jaco, the FF Bruce quote you used, is he saying that John 1 is talking about the “New Creation” [ala Col 1.15f.] and not the original Genesis creation? Never looked at it like that before, always thought it was a natural connection with Gen. 1.
We are considered the creatures of God that are among the things on earth that are being reconciled to God by the cross of Christ. Those things in heaven are those who believed in God by the scriptures, who died on this earth before Christ was made manifest in the flesh. By Jesus, God worked to reconcile everything unto himself.
Colossians 1:20 seems to suggest that the work of Christ goes even beyond the lives of men who lived on this earth, those of the past, those of the present, and those of the future.
Whatever is, whether visible or invisible will be in harmony with God by Christ. All of it, will be a symphonic orchestration arranged
by God in Christ unto his eternal glory.
Correction, those people who lived and died who believed in God are among those things in heaven, mentioned in Col 1:20.
Those under the old covenant who attained unto justification by faith in God, those men whose faith in God knew no bounds, received the benefit of the grace of God which was revealed unto us who have believed in Christ.
Xavier,
The reference in F.F Bruce’s commentary primarily deals with John’s dual usage of “creation.” As I showed (albeit not nearly as extensively) even Paul made use of this amphibologic language. This puts Col. 1:15-20 within the same league, since, linguistically and exegetically, one arrives at the same conclusion.
Your brother,
Jaco
Jaco,
I get that their all talking about “creation” but which one is the Gospel of John referring to, was my question. Sounded like you agree with Bruce’s view that the Johannine prologue is referring to the “New Creation” of Col 1.15f.?
Just seek clarification regarding your point of view.
Xavier,
I agree with F.F Bruce in his understanding of the usage of “creation” in the Prologue. This is also my understanding that the same applies to the Colossians 1:15-20 section.
Jaco
Jaco, why do you think the Johannine Prologue is alluding to the “new creation” Paul refers to in Col 1.15-20? I think the writer echoes the opening phrase of Gen 1.1. Not only in terms of the textual evidence but the context in which this phrase is used. In other words, there is nothing in the rest of the Prologue to tell me the “new creation” is in view here.
NOTE: All in this creation and not some future one to come. Then again, I might be wrong…
correction “I am yet to read any commentator that deviates from this interpretation.” is my line not ESV
Xavier,
The literary figure of speech often used by John is called amphibologia, where an event or concept is used to illustrate or emphasise a related but greater concept. In this case it is creation, life, light, etc. Another figure of speech also used by John and others is called prolepsis.
According to Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, prolepsis is
This is nicely illustrated by the writer of Hebrews:
Heb. 1:5b “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father”
Heb. 1:13b “Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”
Heb. 2:5 “For it is not to angels that he has subjected the inhabited earth to come, about which we are speaking”
Heb. 2:8-9 (brilliant example) “All things you subjected under his feet. For in that he subjected all things to him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though we do not yet see all things in subjection to him; but we behold Jesus, who has been made a little lower than angels, crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, that he by God’s underserved kindness might taste death for every man.”
Here OT statements are proleptically applied. They are used in their present or past tense to denote the anticipatory definitivity of God’s intentions and purposes.
Compare the language usage to Col. 1:15-20 and you’ll see amphibologia (double speak) and proleptic reality.
Xavier, this particular area of theology is rather advanced, in my opinion. It is also somewhat new to me, although I hear a clear ring of truth in it. So much has been written on prolepsis, that it will hardly be sufficiently covered on this blog.
I will do my very best, though.
A great help in explaining prolepsis, in both Paul’s and John’s writings is the book “One God & One Lord” by Graeser, Lynn and Schoenheit. You can order it from TruthorTradition.com.
Jaco
Jaco,
I am familiar with these terms and “One God & One Lord” is one of the first “extra-biblical” works I ever read when I first came to Christianity 3 years ago.
But I don’t see how this might affect the connection between Jn 1.1 and Gen 1.1. I still don’t think its talking about the “new creation”.
Is this concept of proleptic reality similar to what we see in the OT where prophecies often could be applied both to a king or kingdom at the time, but also dealt with future realities?
I think yout referring to the Messianic prophecies of, say, 2Sam 7; Ps 2; 45; Isa 9; etc…
Aaron,
I suppose it could. The writer of Hebrews appears to be using it that way. John and Paul also do. Here’s another example from the letter of Jude:
But maybe we’re digressing a bit. Aaron, any more questions with what we’re discussing here? I’m still wondering what you’re making with the two reference I gave you in my comment on the “Mere Man” article. The Numbers and Deuteronomy verses.
Jaco
It seems to me that John begins his gospel by talking about the beginning of creation and the beginning of the scriptures, connecting the light with Jesus.
So was the beginning words of the scriptures a prophecy concerning Jesus, speaking of him in a type or figure?
It seems to me to be so, for the spirit of God overshadowed Mary
and by the word of God, the womb brought forth the saviour.
In that womb, at the time of her conception, wasn’t all yet without form?
Correction,
Just before the conception in Mary, wasn’t the new creation without
form?
Jaco,
In both OT passages, it speaks of an agent that Yahweh works through. I mentioned this in the other thread, but it probably got buried in my long discourse.
Aaron, what I think Jaco is alluding to here is the common feature of the Hebrew Bible known as the concept of Shaliah:
That is interesting.
I never noticed how the Exodus and Acts passage mention the speaker being the angel of the LORD.
I see what you are getting at.
I had always regarded the angel of the Lord to be a supernatural vision of God himself – not an angel who was given special responsibility. That’s worth looking into.
Do you think an angel, as an agent of God, could make the ground holy? The same experience is expressed in Joshua where the angel of the LORD appears and tells Joshua that the ground is holy.
Just a thought.
The principle of agency is also seen in a couple of other interesting records. The Angel of the Lord appeared to Hagar and spoke to her in Genesis 16:7ff, but verse 13 says that “she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me…” Similarly, an angel appeared to Manoah and his wife in Judges 13. Manoah did not know it was an angel at first, according to verse 16. But he realized it was the angel of the LORD in verse 21, yet in the next verse, he said to his wife, “We shall surely die, because we have seen God.”
For more, see my website:
http://godskingdomfirst.org/WhoIsMessiah.htm#agent
Aaron,
By their very “nature”, spiritual messengers OF GOD [i.e. subservient/obedient to Him alone] are called “holy angels” [Mar 8.38; Lu 9.26; Acts 10.22; Rev 14.10]. Hence, Jesus’ saying that those who attain to the resurrection from the dead [i.e. eternal life] will be “like angels in heaven” [Mar 2.25], hence we are admonished “to be holy” as God Himself is holy [1Pe 1.13-16].
So yes, since God Himself is said to be spirit, the principle of agency works in a more direct way through His own spiritual messengers. In other words, in a more direct way than he would with humans. Although, through His “only begotten Son” [Jn 1.18; 3.16] and because the way he was generated directly via God’s HOLY spirit, and remained obedient/subservient to only Him all the way to his death, Jesus has attained supremacy EVEN over God’s angels [Heb 1].
I have a note in my 1599 Geneva, where it is said that that the scripture calls the Son of God an Angel. (Acts 7:30)
However, even if it were Jesus, I am reminded of the prophecy of Moses about the prophet that would come from among Israel that would be like them and that God will put his words in his mouth, according to their desire that God not speak to them as he did from the mountain. (Deut 18:15)
In the book of Revelation, we see Jesus give his word by his angel.
The angel spoke as if he were Jesus.
As near as I can tell, there were three who said, “I am Alpha and Omega..”, the messenger (the Angel), God the Father, and Jesus.
I noticed that in my KJV somethings are in red and some are not, and that it is difficult if not impossible to tell the distinctions of this
matter.
Ray,
You may be dead on here.
If anything, we know 3 distinct “persons” [individuals] are involved in the unfolding Revelation being given by God Himself [v.1].
I understand that angels are holy. Likewise, we are called to put on our new self which is created in holiness (Eph. 4:24). I can’t make a piece of ground holy though. It seems a bit much for an angel to sanctify a piece of ground and make it holy. If that were the case – every time an angel showed up – they would tell the people to take off their shoes for the ground is holy. Every time they show up they are agents of God. I assert that only the presence of God can make a piece of ground holy.
But that’s a little tangent….
I’m glad you brought up the idea of agency. I’ve been thinking about it, and wondering about what the extents of agency might be. I can see how the words an agent speaks can be considered the words of the master. I can also see how an agent can work within the power of the master to the extent that the master grants it. I think the dividing line, however, is equality. The agent is not equal in nature to his master – even if the agent carries the master’s authority. Would you agree?
Another dividing line is worship. The Bible says that only God is worthy of our worship. I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where an agent is worshiped and thus ultimately God is worshiped. I see the exact opposite, where God’s agents refuse worship. This should tell us something about the limits of an agent. The agent knows they shouldn’t receive any praise that is aimed at God – even if the intentions are good. We see this in Revelations where John bows before the angel and is told to get up. The same in Acts 10:25-26 where Cornelius bows to Agent Peter. Peter tells him to get up. Would you agree that worship should only be given directly to God? Like the verse I mentioned a while back says “I will share my Glory with no one.”
If you figure otherwise that the worship of an agent is tantamount to worshiping God – then I guess that puts me in the safe – if your doctrine is true. My worship of Jesus as God is the same as worshiping God. Yay!
I just read again the first paragraph of this article and it seems to me that every trinitarian I ever met seemed to think he had the exact right flavor of ice cream that goes with every meal everyone
should ever eat.
How boring.
Do they have a chip on their shoulder, is that it?
Well, if it is a chip, I wonder what it is. Is it pride? Is it self-righteousness? Is it sectarian? Is it group think? Is it some kind of control?
I suppose everyone will have to examine themselves to see what it is.
It seems there were many thru out history who also didnt believe in the trinity and paid the ultimate price for it
http://www.ccg.org/English/S/p170.html
I have a strong feeling that some of you opened this and thought this was just about the sabbath when in fact this is more about the History of unitarianism from Jesus to presnt day.
I did not post this to promote the sabbath because i feel most of you are deceived beyond hearing the truth of this subject, i posted it for the belief we all share here. Christian Monotheism
Jaco,
Re: blog 219 – 11 Nov 2009
You say: “This whole proleptic understanding of the new creation was something I also only recently had to come to grips with. As a former Watchtower Witness this concept had been greatly obscured from me due the Watchtower’s amateutish understanding of Scripture and their novel theology. I believe in time you’ll grasp it as well.”
Is it not true that things seem ‘obscured’ as a result of a lack of research or inspection. Example: In dim light objects seem very obscured… but with even just a candle light things become more evident and visible… How can you say that the Watchtower people obscured this concept by amateurish understanding of Scripture? How did you come to understand it now then? Where do we find the light? Is it not with our God, Yahweh? Do you not agree then that it is our own responsibility to seek the truth and thus make it known.( As you have done so well already) Do you not agree that we are judged by God individually of our faith and not by virtue of any group or religion? And that He gives spirit of understanding to those asking? Thus the responsibility of our faith lies with each one of us individually. Also praying for His guidance.
Your blaming the Watchtower group for obscuring understanding is a little harsh and also makes no sense for an intellectual man as yourself. From your blogs it is evident that you are a learned man with great interest in matters of faith. However it seems you blame others for the lack of noticing some truths yourself. Does this not make us all human? Are the Watchtower people a perfect organization? Or is it possible that some things might also be new or not so clear to them? Does this not encourage all to research God’s Word rather than pointing fingers.
As adults we should think and reason like adults, and not do as children do when a matter involving all the children becomes evident. Children then start blaming others first for not noticing or acting instead of admitting fault or (not noticing the problem) and thus not fixing or working on the problem themselves.
However I would like to thank you for your meaningful blogs and your knowledge of truth and the word of God. Please keep it up.
Hope to see more of your great reasonings.
Anne
Dear Ron,
I’m responding to the initial post, but I have not read the several hundred comments in between:
Your founding premise was that if Jesus was God, then Satan must be a total moron, to even try tempting him. I would like to make a couple brief points:
1) Satan is clever, yet
2) Satan is a total moron.
First, if Satan was going to strike, would he abstain from when his enemy placed himself in a seemingly weakened state? Satan has tried to tempt God before, such as in the case of Job, and who knows how many other times that aren’t recorded in scripture.
In the case of Job, he failed because God cannot be successfully tempted. God allowed Satan to afflict Job, but not to destroy him, but to ultimately render good.
Second, Satan is a total moron, in the sense that he is insane, desperately wicked, and a psychopath. Consider this: would a sane created cherubim try to rise up and overthrow God, thinking that he could be the Most High?
(See Isaiah 14 and Revelation 12:4 – it happened!)
How could he think for a moment that he could overthrow the God that created him with a word? He would have to be a total moron to even attempt such a thing!
I have one other point: you suggested that the demons did not believe that Jesus was God. That is a strange argument, because Justin Martyr argued that the devils were driven out at the name of Jesus (which was evident in his day) and this indeed was proof that Jesus was the same LORD God of the Old Testament.
(Justin was not a Trinity guy, by the way.)
On the subject of demons, we have a very important scripture:
Luk 10:17-18 KJV
(17) And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
(18) And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
1) They used the name of Jesus, and not of another, to drive out the devils
2) To explain why the devils were subject to his name, Jesus explained to them that he was there when the devil was cast out in the beginning
This is an implied proof of his divinity, and an absolute proof of preexistence. Jesus wasn’t saying that he say a vision of the event, he was explaining that this was the reason the devils were subject to his name.
Jas 2:19 KJV
(19) Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
The devils trembled at the name of Jesus. They were not cast out in any other name. There is one more instance with regard to the devils that I think is important:
I’d just like to point out that Jesus neither prayed nor fasted when he cast out this devil, and the fault was not with the name of Jesus, but with the unbelief of his disciples.
In conclusion, by their very actions the devils admitted that Jesus was God in the flesh, and they admitted that it was Jesus that would torment in their due time.
Mark wrote:
Not one, Mark? Not even a hint?
Who is does this?
a) the LORD (Old Testament)
b) Jesus, the Son of God (New Testament)
Besides being cast out and trembling at his name, I think that this also qualifies as a “single hint” that the devils recognized Jesus was indeed LORD God.
Take care,
-Andrew