Kingdom Ready Blog

258 Comments »

258 Responses to “Response to “Jesus Only” Critique”

1. on 13 Aug 2009 at 5:25 pm1 Andrew Patrick

   Dear Sean,

   The purpose of this particular article “When Jesus Awoke and Calmed the Storm” was not to intended to prove Jesus was God from that single miracle. Rather, it was addressing a particular style of argument that was used in the “Did Jesus Think He Was God” tract. Specifically, the tract took a single verse, out of context, and then attempted to create a contradiction based upon that single verse.

   In this particular case, the “Calming the Storm” was spoken of in scripture twice in reference to the LORD, and more pointedly demonstrated yet another time that Jesus identified himself as God, as equal to God, through his actions (some people claim that actions speak louder than words.)

   I thought it was ironic that a powerful demonstration of Christ’s divinity was being interpreted as a “proof” in the opposite sense! You said that this proves that Jesus was not vigilant, and therefore, he could not be God. However, I think the facts show that God was diligent.

   1. The boat did not sink, and Jesus was obviously quite relaxed (and not worried) about the whole affair. If Jesus had been afraid, then you might have evidence that he was not God. Rather, “sleeping” demonstrates the opposite effect.

   2. God is quite capable of paying attention in heaven while sleeping on a boat at the same time. But if all the storms had been prevented, how would Jesus have demonstrated his mastery over the elements?

   However, if the boat had sunk, and Jesus or the apostles died, then you might have a case for God not being vigilant.

   I think that this particular argument, the “Jesus slept” argument is similar to at least two other arguments I have recently encountered (which may or may not have been in the original tract I was critiquing):

   1. “People saw Jesus” + “No man can see God” ergo, “Jesus is not God” argument,

   2. “Jesus was a man” + “God is not a man” ergo, “Jesus is not God” argument.

   “No man can see God” is contradicted by several examples, especially from the context of the “No man can see God” quote, because within the same verses it says Moses did see God. Likewise, God are also described as a “man” (or “men”) in the Bible, such as when God appeared before Abraham on the plains of Mamre, or when Jacob wrestled God when he fleddest from his brother.

   I describe this at the risk of a “Straw Man” argument, but these two argument examples were the reason I wrote my particular review of “When Jesus Awoke and Calmed the Storm” – it was the third version of the “create the contradiction” argument that I hadn’t addressed recently, so I wrote a quick article.

   To be fair, you did not bring up those points in your blog response, but you did ask me another question. Quoting below, you asked:

   “Furthermore, a question I’ve always been curious about in regard to “Jesus Only” advocates is how they would respond to the fact that Jesus and the Father have separate wills that are not always agreed:”

   Matthew
   26.39 And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.”

   And then asked: “Doesn’t this text clearly “prove” that Jesus is not the same as the Father?”

   First, I’d like to point out that this verse does not demonstrate a “that Jesus and the Father have separate wills that are not always agreed:” Rather, this verse demonstrates the opposite. Jesus is in perfect agreement between with his Father. How does this verse demonstrate disagreement in any form?

   I often point out that even in our every day experience, it is possible for a single “person” to have “more than one will.” Without pulling up scriptural examples right now, I have personally “submitted to my own will” by answering an alarm clock that I set when I was fully awake. Even if I am drowsy, I might say “I don’t want to go through with this, but I’m going to listen to myself here.”

   I maintain that my “sleepy self” and my “awake self” are not two separate people, even if my “sleepy slef” fails to demonstrate all my human qualities such as memory, literacy, and ability to remember why I set that alarm in the first place.

   As far as “Doesn’t this text clearly “prove” that Jesus is not the same as the Father?” it all depends on how you define “the same.” God in heaven was called the Father. God on earth called himself Jesus. God in the burning bush called himself “I AM.” God speaking in Revelation calls himself “Alpha and Omega.”

   Nor should this be an unusual concept – people often take different names for different reasons. Jacob was called Israel, Saul started to be called Paul, Samuel Clements was called “Mark Twain” when he wrote books, and no one claims that Theodor Geisel, Theo LeSieg, and Dr. Suess are a Trinity, one, yet three persons with three personalities!

   For the record, Theodor Geisel is Theo LeSieg, and is Dr. Suess, and these three are one. Really. The same man uses one name for most aspects of his real life, inspires other illustrators with his words as Theo LeSieg, but his work is only fully revealed when he signs as “Dr. Suess” with his own words and artwork.

   As a disclaimer, I noticed that I was identified as being “Jesus Only.” This descriptive is normally associated with Pentecostal churches, but I have had no prior association with a Pentecostal church, and I only heard the term only within this last year.

   Likewise, I have only seen the term “Sabellanism” and “Modalism” a couple times, usually in reference to people who only briefly mentioned it long enough to label it as “heresy.” “Labelling” is probably inevitable, but as a disclaimer, I only know of these terms through casual study.

   My stance is that I believe my Bible is perfect and inspired, and it says there is One God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and it has many proofs that these are one and the same, that Jesus was God in the flesh, and it is certainly not outside God’s power to be in more than one place at a time. I have found too many proofs and equivalences within the scriptures for me to ignore.

   I think that many people may have trouble coming to grips with the “Nature of God” question because “omnipotence” can be a difficult subject to grasp.

   Additionally, the issue has been further compounded by centuries of creeds, confessions, and heresy examiners, which has gripped tight more than a few inherited doctrines from the the Roman church.

   However, if proofs and questions are brought forward, I think it would behoove all of us to make sure that the arguments are truly sound. If God has the power to listen to all of our prayers at the same time, surely he has the power to continue to run the universe from heaven, and sleep on a boat… at the same time. Or is that “impossible” for God?

   Take care,
   -Andrew

2. on 10 Sep 2009 at 6:55 pm2 happiness

   Truth is we are God, Jesus said know this “Ye are Gods”. This is absolutely true. This is the big secret that the churches have tried to keep a secret so that they can covet power and fool the masses to believing that we are somehow separate from God. That is why the catholic church calls it “Mass”. Its a con and a scam to consolidate power for egotistical purposes and its a part of us that we have introduced into reality to allow for a tension and release, so that we can wake up to realize that we are God. Its an incredible joy that can only come with experience. This doenst just occur without effort and work, it takes soul searching, meditation and service to others, and after a certain amount of goodness has been accomplished by a soul, it starts to see itself in all things, and we remember that we are God. This is the nature of self realization. IN the beginning God (we) created the universe from a singularity of our own thought. then we saw that it was good, but we wanted to experience each and every part of our creation from a non-biased non Godlike point of view and to experience mortality. Thus a veil of forgetting that we are God was needed by our souls to have a legitimate experience as a mortal living in a land of confusion and a hiearchy of evil that is the grand illusion. The path then becomes to know that we are God living in our own creation, we are trying to get back to our true self, and this is our plan. At some point humanity will evolve and we will regard each and every other thing as a part of our-self. Then unconditional love will be easy, because we will regard every other thing as a part of us, and we will know that we are the creator and the creation living in harmony. Right now currently many of us are living in our own self imposed cosmic delusion (ego) where we see ourselves as separate from our creator, this has been taught by the priests so that they may be able to rule and divide humanity, but it is also part of our divine plan. I mean in no way to insult any intelligence and this information comes not from ego but from pure unconditional love from my heart to help people awake from the slumber of being isolated from our true nature, we are the 1 true almighty God living in a world with our own self imposed limitations, which in time will all begin to be shed. Jesus christ is the way and the truth and the light, and at one time, though we dont remember intentionally, we lived as Jesus, and we also lived as those who tortured him (crazy but we also have to play the bad guy sometimes), this was all required to experience the myriad of creation from all perspectives. This is not a blasphemy rather its the truth, In this incarnation earthly form I am a positive polarized soul of love and light and look forward to the time when humanity will see the one true God living in all of us. In Jesus name and in the name of love and life we look forward to a glorious future of reuniting with unconditional love and harmony.

3. on 10 Sep 2009 at 7:50 pm3 Ray

   Let’s beware of humanism. Human faith acomplishes nothing good.
   We are not God. God is God alone, though Jesus his Son is as he is
   and may show himself as if he is God, for God has given him all things which is also for our salvation. We should not be willing to
   see ourselves as God, but more willing to see Jesus as God, even
   as he is the Son of God. I say this in the sense that Jesus is as God
   is in character and virtue and in power because God has given him
   his power as it is right for him to have all power. Let us not be of those who preach ourselves but rather worship God, for when the light that is in us becomes dark, how great is that darkness! Only
   the truth of God brings us light and it comes to us through Jesus Christ his Son. Without him being first we can do nothing but fall into ourselves and our own destructions which are of the flesh, cheap counterfeits of reality. Let’s let no corrupt communication pro ceed out of our mouths except that which ministers grace. The grace that God gave us is Jesus. To be effective in this world, we must minister Christ to the world for his is the light of this world as long as he is. He is in this world by the spirit, as he was in the past,
   yet today more brightly beams the truth of God because of him. Let
   us lift our swords high in praise to the almighty king, and to God our father in heaven, in Jesus’ name.

4. on 10 Sep 2009 at 7:59 pm4 Ray

   I wasn’t aware of the “Jesus only” doctrine or “movement”.
   Thank you Sean. Straight and narrow is this way that has been commited unto us by God in Christ Jesus, a great responsibility.
   Let us all steward this mystery well for the sake of Jesus as only
   by him do we have hope of any reward, remembering that he is the judge over all of us for eternity by his faithfulness and the righteous determination of God the father of all who believe in Christ.

5. on 10 Sep 2009 at 8:03 pm5 Sean

   Dear Andrew,

   Thank you for your generous and thorough response. I do apologize for the delay in returning correspondence. So, as I understand it you are really taking issue with the method of pointing out that I took a single verse out of context to create a contradiction. Well, I have tried to demonstrate in my above response that this verse in no way has been de-contextualized. The context does not make Jesus any less asleep. Furthermore, I do not see a contradiction with Scripture, but with the notion that Jesus is God. Perhaps it would be helpful to remember that verses were added in much later and roughly correspond to what we call sentences. So, quoting a sentence to make a point should not make ones argument any less forceful than quoting a paragraph. Obviously if I quote a sentence and then make a case to twist its meaning that would be a misinterpretation.

   But, is that what I have done here? Have I twisted the words “Jesus himself was in the stern, asleep on the cushion” to mean something else? As far as I can tell I’m the one taking these words seriously. You are attempting to read into the passage your theology about how Jesus is both asleep and awake at the same time because he is omnipotent (yet the text makes no such implications). The Bible simply states that Jesus was asleep. Now, we have all been asleep and know very well what it means to be asleep. This is not some esoteric or allegorical expression in need of fine exegetical skill to understand. Jesus was asleep. Thus, Jesus was not awake because one who is awake is not asleep. Can you see how I’m not trying to twist anything here? Asleep people are unconscious, they are not “vigilant.”

   Unless you are willing to go down the torturous road of incarnational theology with its mind boggling dual natures doctrine (hypostatic union), which I don’t think you even believe, I think you are stuck saying that God was asleep (i.e. not awake!). But, this is impossible and so you have to either change your view of who Jesus and God are or else some how reinterpret the plain meaning of Scripture in Mark 4.38.

   ---

   On to your explanation of how Jesus’ will…I must confess that I have never heard such a response before. I do congratulate you in your ingenuity to conceive of a way to make sense of this verse from within your oneness theology. It is probably the best explanation that could be given, yet I still find myself unconvinced. You see, when I awake in a haze and stare at my clanging alarm clock, I do in fact have a similar experience to you having both a desire to sleep more as well as a desire to get up to make my first class, yet this analogy breaks down when we carefully observe that the text in Matthew 26.39 has two individuals in it (one is the person praying the other is his Father). Again, this is not reading into the text, but simply the conclusion any unbiased person would come to if he read this sentence. By definition a Son is not the same as his Father (even if the Father is God). It would be preposterous to have a Father and Son of the same age (for that is the situation with brothers not fathers and sons). Also, a Father cannot be his own Son. This is also impossible and militates against the definition of words. In other words, to make the Father the same individual as the Son is to destroy the meanings of the words Father and Son. May I suggest that if one’s model of understanding God and Jesus requires us to destroy language to make sense of the Bible then it is probably a good idea to change our model and preserve the meaning of language. So, this situation is more analogous to my clanging alarm ringing on and on and I snooze it so I can sleep some more, but my wife wills that I should arise so that she would not be awakened again in 10 minutes when the alarm bursts forth. This is a better/closer analogy because two individuals are involved who have two distinct wills at variance with each other.

   I wonder are you open to the possibility that oneness theology may be wrong? Also, if you are open to consider a much more expert presentation, please listen to Pastor J. Dan Gill’s audio file. I’m sure Dan would appreciate any feedback you could give him on what he said there (since he comes from the same background as you).

6. on 15 Jan 2010 at 4:42 pm6 Andrew Patrick

   Dear Sean,

   In your blog, you acknowledged that “sleep” was used metaphorically in the Old Testament. When it says that God neither slumbers nor sleeps, it is obviously not intended to be applied in a literal physical sense.

   I do not disagree that Jesus slept physically when he was on earth: requiring sleep is a natural infirmity that comes with the human body… Christ subjected himself to such infirmities and limitations as part of the experience.

   Likewise, Jesus also ate food and drank wine, to satisfy requirements of a natural body. Abraham also served food and drink to when God visited him on the plains of Mamre… and Jacob was able to physically *restrain* God when he wrestled him, when he fleddest from his brother Esau. God clearly can subject himself to limitations when he chooses.

   In short, the flaw in your specific argument is claiming that “God neither slumbers nor sleeps” is talking about a literal physical sleep – the term is used metaphorically (as you yourself allowed for the other OT instances) to say that God would not forsake Israel. If God takes a physical form, he can subject himself to eating, drinking, sleeping, or being wrestled – as he wishes.

   Concerning the meanings of the words “Father” and “Son” it must be remembered that God is neither a literal father nor a literal son, any more than he is a literal lion or a literal lamb, a literal rock or a literal cornerstone. God uses many names (or titles, if you prefer) which all serve different descriptive purposes. This does not mean that the “Lion of Judah” must be a different person from the “Lamb of God” or that the “Chief Cornerstone” is not the same as the “Rock of our Salvation.” It’s just emphasizing a different aspect with an appropiate name or title.

   You asked me to consider if perhaps my “oneness theology” might be wrong. I’d like to state up front that I am not entirely sure what “oneness theology” assumes or entails, and neither do I do have a “oneness theology” background. My current understanding is from a plain reading and comparison of scriptures, not from any specific teaching, indoctrination, peer pressure, or the like. So it is unlikely that Pastor Gill and I share any similar background in this regard.

   I will, however, allow anyone a fair chance to prove me wrong or convince me otherwise, provided that they are willing to put their beliefs to the same test. Thus, I extend an offer for a private exchange, comparing notes, arguments, and relevant scripture – I will be chivalrous and courteous, I will attempt to answer any question, and I might even change your mind.

   Please drop me an email, even just as a brief “maybe we can talk later, but not right now” message. If you don’t have my address, it’s still located at the bottom of the “When Jesus Awoke and Calmed the Storm” article.

   Take care,
   -Andrew

7. on 15 Jan 2010 at 7:50 pm7 Doubting Thomas

   Sean
   I am just a layman with limited knowledge of the old testament. But Jesus did say that if anyone including us (if we had enough faith) could tell the mountain to be uprooted and set into the sea and it would be done. Surely Jesus had enough faith in God his father that he could say a few words and calm a storm. A small feat in relation to uprooting a mountain.

8. on 16 Jan 2010 at 11:18 am8 Ray

   How might we respond if ever we were to hear Jesus say about
   himself, that he is God?

   a. “I have a Bible and can show that this is not true.”
   b. “I knew it, I knew it, I know, that Jesus is the Son of God.”

9. on 16 Jan 2010 at 11:33 am9 robert

   c. Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve

10. on 16 Jan 2010 at 12:17 pm10 Ray

    All the angels of God worship Jesus.

    Only people who are born again may serve him. They will also worship Jesus.

    Though the devils bow before him they don’t really worship him as he is to be worshipped.

11. on 16 Jan 2010 at 12:30 pm11 Doubting Thomas

    Ray
    The angels worship Jesus as their King. I don`t believe it would be the same way they worship God. God created both the angels and Jesus. The created should not be worshiped the same way one worships the creator. The creator deserves better than this.

12. on 16 Jan 2010 at 6:11 pm12 Ray

    Both Jesus and God may be referred to as “The Lord Of Hosts.”
    Jesus was made a man by God who brought about his new existence in this world, an existence in flesh and blood, the existence of a new kind of man, one that always did the Father’s will and never fell short of his glory.

    Because there is a distinction between Jesus and God the Father
    one might expect there to be some ways that God is worshipped differently than men worship Jesus, and though there may very well be, I have found so many ways in which they are worshipped
    the same.

    Both were in the beginning. Both are holy. Jesus is the righteousness of God, and God is the very essence of righteousness.

    All that was made in the beginning was made by God and Jesus.

    In the beginning was the Word. And the Word had fellowship with God. God communicated the word and the word was received by Jesus. Jesus, having received the word of God, did as God said.
    He dwelt in God, and God in him. In God was life. Jesus is that life that was in God in the beginning. God is the life that is in Jesus.
    The Word was one with God. Jesus is one with the word of God.
    In Jesus there are many. All that are right with Jesus are right with God. All that are not right with Jesus, are not right with God. All that are not right with Jesus need the salvation of God. All that are saved by God are saved by Jesus.

    There is a worship that belongs only to God. Dean Braxton writes about this in his new book. It’s the worship that comes from God himself. He witnessed a worship for God that came from God himself. It was different than all the other worship.

13. on 16 Jan 2010 at 6:23 pm13 Ray

    I’m not certain of how the word of God was communicated in the beginning. I’ve read about how in heaven, things are often communicated without speaking words. There are ways of saying things without saying them as we may think of saying things.

14. on 16 Jan 2010 at 7:09 pm14 Doubting Thomas

    Ray
    Beautifully said. I agree with everything you said except the quote from John. But we can`t all agree on everything. All that is important is that we Love God with all our hearts and all our minds and all our strength. May the peace of God be with you and with us all….

15. on 17 Jan 2010 at 3:35 pm15 Ray

    John clearly stated that in the beginning was the word.
    That’s not a misquote.

    What follows that statement in post 12 is not a quote from John’s gospel but if it is wrong it is a misrepresentation of the gospel.

    Do you believe I misrepresented something of the gospel?

16. on 17 Jan 2010 at 4:26 pm16 Doubting Thomas

    Ray
    No I don`t believe you have misrepresented John`s gospel. I was just pointing out the fact that you and I disagree with whether the book of John should have been included in the bible or not. It is normal for people to have disagreements. I don`t think there are two people in the entire world that agree on everything.

    To me our disagreement it not that important since I don`t believe in orthodoxy where we are all judged on whether we have the correct doctrines or not. I don`t believe Jesus is going to be giving out doctrinal tests to people on judgment day.

    I actually believe that people from all religious backgrounds (Jewish, Muslim, etc…) can have the law of God written on their hearts and follow God`s law all their lives while at the same time being completely ignorant of the writings that exist concerning his law.

    Like Jesus said, `People from the South and the East will be reclining at the table with Isaak and Jacob before some of the children of Abraham will.` (or words similar to that).

    I believe in orthopraxy where we are all judged by our actions. Why would Jesus have spent so much of his time teaching us how we should behave if our behavior was not crucial to our salvation…

17. on 17 Jan 2010 at 8:41 pm17 Ray

    I believe we’re all going to be judged as to our obedience. It will depend on what we’ve done with Jesus. Did we let him in when we heard him? Were we willing to listen to him? Did we learn from him?
    Did we let him in? Did we treat him as a friend, Lord, or stranger?
    Did we highly esteem him? Did we refuse him? Did we prefer anyone else before him? These are the things of importance.

18. on 17 Jan 2010 at 9:12 pm18 Doubting Thomas

    Ray
    I agree with everything you say except the one part where you said, `Did we prefer anyone else before him..` Like I said it is alright to Love Jesus and obey Jesus and to bow on bended knee to him as our King and to respect and honor every word that comes out of his mouth and to revere him.

    But we shouldn`t worship the created the same way we worship the creator. Jesus himself said the most important commandment was, `Hear O Isreal our Lord and God is one and we should love him with all our hearts all our minds and all our strength. And the second most important commandment is to love our neighbor as ourself on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.` (I don`t think I have the wording exactly right but it was similar to this.)

    Jesus also said that God wants compassion not sacrifice. Love and compassion seems to be what Jesus is emphasizing that God wants from us. Jesus always humbled himself and put God and God`s will above himself and his will. I think he did this as an example for us to follow…

    We should always put God (the creator) first in our worship and our praise.

19. on 19 Jan 2010 at 6:31 pm19 Ray

    Yes, only God is above Jesus. No other.

20. on 19 Jan 2010 at 6:37 pm20 Ray

    When we have a clear view of Jesus, we will likely see him as equal with God the Father. I think it’s important to see him as God
    even as he is his Son and God is above him. To see him as always under the Father is to see him as God is, isn’t it? In his subjection to God, he became as God. He was rewarded for all his obedience
    to God to be over all the things of God.

21. on 19 Jan 2010 at 10:15 pm21 Doubting Thomas

    Ray
    You said, `To see him as always under the Father is to see him as God is, isn`t it..`

    I agree. As the right hand of God he has all the powers of God, but the important thing (I think) to remember is that all the powers he has come to him through the God the father.

    You also said, `In his subjection to God, he became as God. He was rewarded for all his obedience to God to be over all things of God.`

    I couldn`t have said that better myself….

22. on 21 Jan 2010 at 2:20 pm22 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Readers,

    I would offer you all a few questions, for thought:

    Question 1: Who is he who was pierced?
    a) Jesus Christ (Rev 1:5-7)
    b) Alpha and Omega (Rev 1:8)
    c) the LORD (Zech 12:4-10)
    d) all of the above

    Zech 11:13 “And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter, a goodly price I was prised at of them … ”

    Question 2: is the LORD speaking in verse 13, or not? If not, then why does it say, “the LORD said” and why does it use the pronoun “I?”

    Question 3: Where do you turn to find out who is the “first and the last?”
    a) Isaiah 41:4
    b) Isaiah 44:8
    c) Isaiah 48:16
    d) Revelation 1:8
    e) Revelation 1:11
    f) Revelation 1:17
    g) Revelation 22:13
    h) all of the above…

    Could Jesus have named himself any more explicitly? Can there be more than one “first and the last?”

    Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD, that is my name, and my glory I will not give to another…

    Question 4: God appeared on earth to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and others. Most people will grant that God is indeed “Omnipotent” – Revelation 13:8. These same people will usually grant that God is omnipresent, allowing for God to be everywhere at once…

    So, if you are one of these people, when God walked the earth when he spoke to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc… do you believe he was absent from heaven at the same time? Or was God capable of walking on earth and talking to Moses, face to face, as one would a friend (Exodus 33:11) and existing in heaven … at the same time?

    Question 5: Who is called “the Rock” in our bible?
    a) the LORD God
    b) Jesus Christ
    c) other (explain)

    For scripture references, see:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/15484041/Sham-Rocks

    Conclusion: All sorts of human reasoning can snare us if we get to wrapped up trying to figure out the *how* of how God did something. It is not for us to figure out the how, it is for us to accept what the scriptures say plainly. And for me, this involves two inescapable truths:
    1) There is one God
    2) Jesus is called God, and identifies himself as God, and uses the names of God. This is evident in so many ways, beyond what I’ve hinted at with the above five questions.

    I’m simply asking this. Place priority upon proving points one and two. Don’t worry about how God manages to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc – focus on what it actually says in black and white.

    Take care,
    -Andrew

23. on 21 Jan 2010 at 6:44 pm23 Ron S.

    Andrew,

    Yes you’re right in that we should accept what Scripture tells us. But one of the very reasons that God gave us humans the ability TO reason was so that so we could know Him and understand what he tells us. We need to use our intellect to resolve perceived contradictions in Scripture.

    One GIANT contradiction is saying that God appears to Abraham, or wrestles with Jacob and yet other plain texts tell us that “no man can see him [God] and live” (Exodus 33:20), “no man has seen God at any time” (John 1:18), or that “no man has seen or can see” God (1 Tim 6:16). These verses just can’t be dismissed. They’re very specific and straightforward. Yet this “perceived” contradiction can be resolved once you understand that God has indeed never been seen directly by man and that all supposed appearances of the Almighty are either through His literal agents/emissaries or visions or dreams of Him.

    Please read the article I just posted today on this here:
    http://kingdomready.org/blog/2010/01/21/divine-agency-in-the-scriptures/

    Also I posted another on the same base subject a year or so ago here:
    http://kingdomready.org/blog/2008/07/21/no-theophanies-or-christophanies-in-scripture/

    These two can answer a good number of the questions you posed above.

    As for the “Alpha & Omega” and “pierced” questions, I’ll refer you to the good folks over at BiblicalUnitarian.com for solid answers to those questions in the following two links.

    http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=157

    http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=150

    Check them out and give it some thought!

24. on 21 Jan 2010 at 9:08 pm24 Doubting Thomas

    Andrew Patrick
    I looked up the quotes you mentioned. If I could just ask you just one question. Why did Jesus say to the rich man who wanted to follow him, “Why do you call me good? There is only one who is good. No one is good but God alone.”

    Did Jesus actually mean, Yes it is good that you call me good since I am actually God walking around in the flesh.

    If this is what Jesus actually meant to say then we must bestow the new title of deceiver to Jesus.

    Wait a minute I think there might already be someone else in the bible with that title…

25. on 21 Jan 2010 at 9:38 pm25 Doubting Thomas

    Andrew Patrick
    After reading my last message I realized it comes across a little harsher than I intended. I hope I didn’t offend you but I was just trying to emphasize my point with a bit of sarcasm. You are of course entitled to your opinion like everyone else…

26. on 21 Jan 2010 at 11:13 pm26 Ray

    Lots of questions. Lots to think about.

    It seems to me that Jesus knew to walk in humility during his ministry here in the days of his flesh. Therefore he didn’t ascribe to himself goodness even though he was most certainly good. He didn’t want the praise of men did he? It seems to me he discouraged it, a godly thing to do, a wise thing to do. And who is wise but God? My answer, Jesus, who kept his eyes on God.

    About Jacob wrestling with God, God speaking to Moses and Abraham, and yet the scripture says that no man has seen God at any time…

    I’m sure God is a lot more than the amount of God that Jacob wrestled with, that he is more than all Moses heard, or that Abraham knew, yet they did interact with God.

    I don’t think any of them saw all there was of God, so we could say that no man has seen all that God is. There is a sense in which we can say that no man has seen God, for what men saw was only a part of him. They didn’t see all of God.

    I think Jesus did see all of God. From heaven’s eternity he was with him. He dwelt with his Father God in that realm that men on this earth get but a glimpse of from time to time. Who on this earth can take it all in, yet Moses talked to him as a man speaks to a man face to face.

    Can there be more than one first and last? Isn’t Jesus our first and last chance to be saved? Isn’t God the first and last father of Jesus?

    Were not Jesus and God from eternity? Have they not both no end of days?

    Isn’t there many ways in which Jesus is God, and yet isn’t there a distinction between him and God? If we can see Jesus as God is and yet be aware of any distinction God has given us, shouldn’t we all get along on this? Shouldn’t we all be able to forebear one another in this?

    We should be able to worship together even when each person sings their own unique song, or sounds their own sound, as long as it’s honest, pure, good, true, and just, and even if it isn’t let’s still forebear and try to work these things out.

27. on 21 Jan 2010 at 11:46 pm27 Doubting Thomas

    Ray
    Very nicely said. You asked, “If we can see Jesus as God is and yet be aware of any distinction God has given us, shouldn’t we all get along on this? Shouldn’t we all be able to forebear one another in this?”

    Theoretically this is possible, but only if we humbly ask God to help us in these matters. Without God’s help we could never do it….

28. on 22 Jan 2010 at 7:10 am28 Jaco

    Andrew Patric,

    Thank you for your good questions and your admirable demeanor in posting those. I know that these things and our zeal for them sometimes get the better of us (myself included.) I’m looking forward to discussing these issues with you.

    Before we do, could you please answer the following questions:

    Since you admit (and I agree with you there) that we have to read and accept what the scriptures plainly tell us, what is your definition of God?

    Do you accept God (ho Theos) as referring to an individual? Or do you regard God (no Greek equivalent, perhaps ‘theios’) as a quality or an attribute of some sort?

    How do you view the possession of the Name Yahweh (or, Jehovah, whichever you like)? Who truly has this name and who can bear this name?

    We can start from here. Brief answers, just to find common ground, and then we can start.

    Regards,

    Jaco

29. on 22 Jan 2010 at 7:22 am29 Jaco

    Sean, brother,

    I think your logical assessment of the whole issue is excellent! Your syllogistic outline indicates the erroneous leaps taken to prove that our Messiah is identical to our Creator Yahweh.

    The actual origin of the whole fallacy is the formal fallacy of “affirming the consequent.” It goes like this:

    If it is gold, it will glitter. It glitters, so it’s gold. (referring to a chip of glass)

    If he is the President of the USA, he will speak Americal English. He speaks Americal English, so he is the President of the USA. (Sean, you’re American, right?…)

    But, so as to not jump the gun, I’ll leave it here…

    Your brother,
    Jaco

30. on 23 Jan 2010 at 4:15 pm30 Andrew Patrick

    To Doubting Thomas,

    You wanted to ask me one specific question, namely, why Jesus said, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” (Mark 10:18, KJV)

    Jesus asked the question because he the man just asked him what he needed to do to inherit eternal life. That question had massive implications. Was he realizing what he was asking? But that man did not attempt to answer the question…

    Read what is said next: Jesus starts to list the commandments, but he does not list all of them. Which ones did he omit from his list? If the “Love the LORD your God” commandments were missing, isn’t it implied that these were the “one thing thou lackest?”

    (Jesus answered a similar question from a lawyer, and these commandments were included – and it was said that these all together were sufficient to inherit eternal life… see Luke 10:25-28.)

    And if the man understood “love thy neighbor” but yet had something above “love God” why was the cure for “love God” to sell everything and follow … Jesus?

    On its surface, the “There is none good but one, God” verse does nothing to substantiate a claim that Jesus not God, because the question was never answered.

    Yet, once the implications of the context are examined, they actually do indicate that our Christ was indeed none other than God in the flesh.

    Yes, there is none good but one, that is, God. Was Jesus implying that he had the power to grant eternal life? Was Jesus God? Did Jesus call himself good? Actually, yes, he did.

    John 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

    The bible speaks of many shepherds… literal shepherds, foolish shepherds, and idol shepherd…. even “his” shepherds… like Cyrus and Moses… but in the Old Testament, who is THE shepherd? Psalm 23.

    The LORD is our shepherd.

    Psa 80:1
    (1) Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth.

    And in the New Testament, who does it name as THE Shepherd? Who is the good shephred, the chief shepherd, the shepherd and bishop of our souls, the great shepherd of the sheep? the ONE Shepherd? (see John 10:16)

    Jesus Christ is our Shepherd.

    Gen 49:24
    (24) But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:)

    Who is the stone of Israel? Why is Jesus called the chief corner stone, and the Rock? Who is the Rock?

    2Sa 23:3
    (3) The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.

    Deu 32:4
    (4) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

    1Co 10:2-4
    (2) And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
    (3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
    (4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

    In the wilderness, did not God command Moses to *strike* the rock, so that it would bring forth waters, that the people might live? Did God forget that He was the Rock?

    Exo 17:6
    (6) Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

    Joh 7:37-38
    (37) In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
    (38) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

    I could go so much further here. Why did God forbid Moses from entering the Promised Land because he struck the Rock a second time, instead of speaking to it?

    You implied that Jesus cannot be a deceiver. I also put forth that he cannot be a blasphemer, nor would God give his names and glory to another. I am not good at giving “short answers” to these questions, because the whole of scripture is just EXPLODING with this message.

    2Sa 23:3-4
    (3) The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.
    (4) And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain.

    … as the light of morning, when the sun risesth….
    Who is called THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS?
    Who is the Sun of Righteousness?
    Who is the daystar?
    Who is the morning star?
    Who is the bright and morning star?

    Who is the light of that holy city, and who giveth them light?
    a) the Lamb (Revelation 21:23)
    b) the LORD God (Revelation 22:5)

    In its normal and ordinary meaning, these two verses prove equivalence. It is not normal to take every verse that proves equivalence, and reason that it cannot possibly mean what it sounds like! In a situation like this, one must be willing to consider that maybe their founding premise might be mistaken, and be willing to consider ALL EVIDENCE.

    Rev 21:6-7
    (6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
    (7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

    Who is Alpha and Omega? “I will be his God” says he.

    Rev 21:3
    (3) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

    How many Gods are there? If you agree that there is one God, the implications are obvious. That God is Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, our creator, judge, mediator, high priest, without beginning or end of days, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the prince of peace… and the Rock of our Salvation.

    Rev 1:8
    (8) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

    Isa 44:6
    (6) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

    Rev 2:8
    (8) And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

    Rev 22:13
    (13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

    To answer someone else’s question, no, there cannot be more than one first and the last… not without a doctrine that allows for TWO Gods that have always existed.

    -Andrew

31. on 23 Jan 2010 at 4:43 pm31 Andrew Patrick

    To Ron S.

    The answer for your “contradiction” lies in the flexibility of language: just read ahead a few scriptures and it is answered for you:

    Exo 33:11
    (11) And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

    Exo 33:20-23
    (20) And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
    (21) And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
    (22) And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
    (23) And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

    1) Here, scriptures plainly state that God spoke to Moses face to face.
    2) Then, God states that “Thou canst not see my face”

    3) Then God says “no man shall see me, and live”
    3) And finally God says “thou shalt see my back parts”

    So here you might have TWO contradictions. Moses spoke to God’s face, but Moses cannot see God’s face, and no man can see God and live, yet Moses will see the back parts of God, and live.

    Instead of a complicated explanation of “agency” … consider that “face” and “see” have flexibility, even in our normal English usage. Do you “see” my point? Do you “see” how “face” can mean both a literal physcial face, or it could also be used to refer to God’s glory (as used in Exodus 33:18?)

    God did wrestle Jacob:
    1) the man that Jacob wrestled had the power to bless
    2) the man said that Jacob had power with God and men
    3) Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, meaning, I have seen God and lived.
    4) God himself verified that he appeared to Jacob at that time.

    Gen 35:1
    (1) And God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there: and make there an altar unto God, that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother.

    “Angel of the LORD” can mean God or angelic servant, and “man” can mean a man born of woman, or simply someone appearing in the form of a man….

    Question: Who is Gabriel?
    1) a man?
    2) an angel?

    Dan 9:21
    (21) Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

    It seems to me that your agency model means that God never sets foot on earth…

    Zec 14:3-4
    (3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
    (4) And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives…

    There is one more problem with your model:

    Mar 10:43-44
    (43) But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
    (44) And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.

    If Christ spoke truly, then if God is chief, if God is truly greatest, then why would he appoint others to be our servant?

    Is God a remote God that never gets involved, that cannot appear within his own creation? Is he a general that cowers in his armchair, or a king that stays cowering in a castle? Does he need an attorney?

    When the scriptures say that God did something, or that God appeared, or that God spoke face to face…. I have no problem with interpreting that literally. When it says that God was manifest in the flesh… I think it means exactly what it sounds like.

    Joh 14:9
    (9) Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

    1Ti 3:16
    (16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

    Maybe it might really mean what it says.

32. on 23 Jan 2010 at 5:18 pm32 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Jaco,

    Answering your specific questions:

    Your Question 1) Since you admit (and I agree with you there) that we have to read and accept what the scriptures plainly tell us, what is your definition of God?

    My answer: That’s a very broad question, and without being given a specific focus, I’ll probably not be able to answer the question the way you mean it. I’ll take a stab at it, however:
    a) God was In the beginning [Genesis 1:1, John 1:1]
    b) God created the heavens and the earth [Genesis 1:1]
    c) God is love [1 John 4:8, 4:16]
    d) God has many names and titles, all of which have applications that reveal his nature.

    Your Question 2) Do you accept God (ho Theos) as referring to an individual? Or do you regard God (no Greek equivalent, perhaps ‘theios’) as a quality or an attribute of some sort?

    My answer: I understand the word “God” to refer to the One True God, yet with powers that we may have trouble relating by personal experience, i.e. omnipotence, omniscence, and omnipresence. God is the One God. But just as a pet hamster might get confused and think that the Right Hand is a different entity than the Face or the Foot, people might get confused by a God that is bigger than all of creation.

    Your Question 3) How do you view the possession of the Name Yahweh (or, Jehovah, whichever you like)? Who truly has this name and who can bear this name?

    My answer: As an English speaker, I prefer the name LORD. Only God can truly be called by this name:

    Jer 23:5-6 KJV
    (5) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
    (6) In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

    The word LORD in the KJV Old Testament is the same as some call “Jehovah.” Likewise, my copy of the Masoretic text tells me that in the Hebrew, that’s “Yehovah Tsedek” [Jehovah our Righteousness] … and a name given by none other than the LORD [Jehovah.]

    If that is a name reserved for God, then why would God give that name to another? This is not the same as a human parent naming their child “Jesus” or “Jehovah” where they may do so inappropiately. Would God give his name and his glory to another?

    Isa 48:11-12 KJV
    (11) For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.
    (12) Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

    You concluded: We can start from here. Brief answers, just to find common ground, and then we can start.

    I reply: I cannot do proper justice to this topic in a blog forum – and I apologize if I have missed any specific questions that have been directed to me.

    Ideally, I can communicate more freely emailing a Word document where I am not constrained by space and formatting limitations… feel free to drop me an email to the address contained within the “When Jesus Awoke and Calmed the Storm” article above.

    Take care,
    -Andrew

33. on 23 Jan 2010 at 6:39 pm33 Doubting Thomas

    Andrew Patrick
    I actually didn’t ask you the question but anywaze…

    I don’t follow your logic. Like I said it seems that you Trinitarians have to twist what Jesus said into knots to try to defend your beliefs. You try to imply that because he omits the the first four commandments and moves on to the commandments that regard how we should behave here on earth that this implies that he is lacking in the very commandments that Jesus skipped.

    I think it is a lot more logical to assume that he skipped the first 4 commandments because he knew the man’s heart and knew he was a devout Jew that obeyed the law and didn’t need to be reminded of what the first 4 commandments said.

    But again you avoid answering the simple question by trying to obfuscate it and talk about what he says before and after and ignoring what it is that he actually said.

    It was either true or false when Jesus said, “Why do you call me good. No one is good except God alone.”

    Jesus is clearly saying that it is wrong to be calling him good and the only one that should be called good is the source of all that is good and that is God the father.

    If Jesus were God walking in the flesh as you claim than Jesus is clearly misleading (or deceiving) the rich young man with his answer.

    Another question is why did Jesus pray passionately three different times to God his father to take this cup away from him if in reality he was actually God in the flesh and in reality wanted to drink the cup and be beaten and crucified?

    How could God’s will be different from the will of his Jesus if they are in reality one and the same person.?

34. on 23 Jan 2010 at 6:52 pm34 Doubting Thomas

    Actually I just looked above and realized I did ask you this question about two or three days ago I was confused because I had just asked Cameron to explain a whole list of quotations from the bible and he basically said that he had reconciled all these things a long time ago and that I should just go off on my own and do the same thing.

    So I came back a second time and asked him to just answer my one question then about Mark 10:18. And low and behold you start talking about how I just asked you to answer just one question when in fact I had just asked Cameron that question about an hour or so ago…

    I’m not really quite sure how many people it is that I am talking to….

35. on 23 Jan 2010 at 10:11 pm35 Ray

    Because Jesus speaks the language of heaven perfectly, he is a citizen of heaven. Because he existed with God from everlasting
    he knew God. Because he never sinned he knows God. Because he was with God as God was with him as he was on this earth, he was
    also seated in the heavelies with God who is in heaven.

    Because men believed God and lived in the truth (which was where
    Christ always was) they found access to heaven upon their departure from this earth. Because in heaven there is one man, even the Son of God who is also the son of man, the son of man is also in heaven because of Jesus.

    Because men who believed in God and walked with God were led by the Lord whom they had not seen, they were also included in
    Christ. Christ was their Lord by whom they were led. By him they were taught of God and learned to walk with God.

36. on 24 Jan 2010 at 12:17 am36 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Doubting Thomas,

    1) Why do you call me a “Trinitarian?” Did you get me confused with Cameron (whomever Cameron is?)

    2) The fact of the matter (according to the Bible) is that Jesus simply asked the man *why* he was calling Christ good – and the man didn’t answer the question.

    What you’re doing is creating a circular argument: if you first assume that Christ was not God, then his statement can only be interpreted as protesting the man’s statement. Thus, you prove what you’ve already assumed.

    Without circular logic, the question proves nothing either way, and the only statement is that “There is one that is good, that is, God.”

    However, I should point out that Jesus did not say that it was wrong to call him “good.” Neither did Jesus ever stop anyone who bowed down and worshipped him. Yet angels and apostles did *not* allow themselves to be worshipped.

    3) And what if God were to deceive people, or allow them to be deceived? There’s a difference between lying, and allowing someone to deceive themselves. Regardless:

    2Th 2:11
    (11) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

    I would have to say it would seem VERY strange and deceptive for God’s prophets to name the Messiah as THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, the LORD of hosts, the LORD strong and mighty, and the LORD mighty in battle, if the Messiah was not the LORD, and it would also seem very deceptive for Jesus to take the names of God for himself and say that he would be our God if he was not God.

    4) It seems to me that you’re asking the same “will” question Sean asked earlier on this same blog exchange. There are not two seperate “wills” here. I’m sure at sometime in your life you’ve chosen to do something that you didn’t *want* to do.

    But how did you do it of your own free will if you didn’t *want* to do it?

    The reason I used the analogy of answering the alarm of a clock, is because that is an analogy that most of us can relate to: we set the alarm of our own free will, and we answer the call, even when we don’t *really* want to answer it. We may even try to resist our OWN ALARM… fervently… three times [or more] depending on how much our eyes hurt.

    Is that a demonstration of seperate wills? If so, you’ve allowed for seperate wills with what most people consider to be one person.

    5) It seems that you are really asking the “Jesus prayed” question. In essence, you are asking, “how or why would someone pray to themselves?”

    In the example of the alarm clock, isn’t the ringing of the alarm a type of prayer, from our earlier awake self, to our current sleepy self? It’s a method of communicating a request… from ourself. The sleepy self isn’t yet arisen in full glory, and is still limited by the constraints of being “sleepy.”

    The difference between the character of this analogy and God, is that God really CAN be in two places at the same time. We are told that he really DID take our infirmities upon himself.

    The “Jesus prayed” question is not a scriptural problem, it is an understanding problem. This is an issue that is solved by analogy – but without knowing your background, it is more difficult for me to find an analogy to which you would relate.

    I find it strange that people can watch all sorts of science fiction movies that allow for time travel, cloning, and virtual reality, and yet confine God to a very rigid limited template. Is God less powerful than the X-men?

    So, here’s the answer to “why did Jesus pray?” Jesus was born, because we need to be born, he experienced pain, because we experience pain, and Jesus prayed because we need to pray. To talk with God, men must pray, therefore Jesus also prayed.

    A computer programmer can create an entire world: yet he can enter his creation as a character, or an account, yet he remains the same programmer outside his creation, even while he exists in a self-limited sense within his creation.

    To test his world, he may enter without administrative priveledges… and not advertise to the other users his rightful status. Yet he still exists outside that world, and if (as a user) he needed to ask for something to be done, he would use the same interface for talking to the “programmer” as every other user would have to use.

    I could explain with many different models – but the models are less important than scripture. Scripture is plain – there is One God, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords… the Almighty, our Rock, our shepherd, our salvation, and he shall be a father to us, and he shall be our God.

    You can’t argue with any of those names or titles, because you know that those are names of God and Christ, and this can be confirmed with a simple word search of the authorized text. Biblical revelation tells us that our God walked this earth, and called himself Jesus.

    Joh 1:1
    (1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    Joh 1:14
    (14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    Someone here said that they didn’t contest that those were the words of John, but that they didn’t think that John should be in the Bible. So, if you toss out John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation, you’re left with 61 books, but you’d still have Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts… how much are they willing to omit? I don’t think it’s valid to omit ANY scripture, any book, or any verse.

    I’ve shown many verses that show Jesus is God, that he takes the names of God, that he was called God, and that the Messiah was prophesied to be God. But I haven’t seen one scripture where it says, black and white, where Jesus says “I am not God.” How come is that?

    Joh 20:28-29
    (28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
    (29) Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

    It seems that this would have been the perfect opportunity, nay, even REQUIRED, if Thomas had spoken wrongly, or if these words could have been confused centuries later.

    Take care,
    -Andrew

37. on 27 Jan 2010 at 11:31 am37 Jaco

    Andrew,
    I read your initial posts to Sean, and would like to reply to some of your comments.
    You said:

    1. The boat did not sink, and Jesus was obviously quite relaxed (and not worried) about the whole affair. If Jesus had been afraid, then you might have evidence that he was not God. Rather, “sleeping” demonstrates the opposite effect.

    I see no connection between the boat’s prevailing, Jesus’ calmness and his sleeping, and his possibly being God. The very same would prove that His Father was in control and Jesus knew it. The error in this case is affirming the consequent.

    2. God is quite capable of paying attention in heaven while sleeping on a boat at the same time. But if all the storms had been prevented, how would Jesus have demonstrated his mastery over the elements?

    I agree with your first sentence here, but whether this was indeed the case cannot be assumed. Jesus’ behaviour does lend support to the argument that, had Jesus been identical to the vigilant God, Yahweh, he would not have fallen asleep.

    However, if the boat had sunk, and Jesus or the apostles died, then you might have a case for God not being vigilant.

    Here the argument commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent. We do not know what would have happened had the boat sunk. All we know is that it didn’t. One can certainly argue that Yahweh did not allow His Son to die in the storm. Yahweh did empower Jesus with spirit without measure (Joh. 3:34). It does not change the fact, however, that Jesus was asleep. Something Yahweh doesn’t do.

    “No man can see God” is contradicted by several examples, especially from the context of the “No man can see God” quote, because within the same verses it says Moses did see God. Likewise, God are also described as a “man” (or “men”) in the Bible, such as when God appeared before Abraham on the plains of Mamre, or when Jacob wrestled God when he fleddest from his brother.

    The Bible explicitly states by God Himself and by inspired writers, that no man can see God (Ex. 33:20, Joh. 1:18), hence the necessity of agents and supernatural events in order to explain Him. The cases where astounded confronters with angelic messengers mentioned their seeing God have to be seen in the context of astonishment and exaggeration they found themselves in. It is one thing to say, men or angels were called God. It is something quite different to say that God was called “a man” or “an angel.”

    First, I’d like to point out that this verse does not demonstrate a “that Jesus and the Father have separate wills that are not always agreed:” Rather, this verse demonstrates the opposite. Jesus is in perfect agreement between with his Father. How does this verse demonstrate disagreement in any form?

    This text most certainly prove separate wills. Jesus and His Father’s perfect agreement does not disprove their different wills. It only proves that Jesus decided to do, not his will, but His Father’s (Joh. 5:30, 6:38). Harmony in will was a matter of choice and obedience, not a matter of ontologically identical wills.
    As regards your references to different “selves” within us, and different names according to different roles the same person fulfill, I’d like to add something. Certainly we cannot use our personal experience and superimpose it upon what Scripture tells us and then try to fit that into our religious paradigm. From a psychological point of view, opposing selves are not a positive thing. For Jesus to indicate not only different wills, but also wills that are expressed as opposing, and subsequently harmonized due to a willful decision, and that as a person supposedly identical to One presented as separate and distinct from himself, amounts to serious paranoid schizophrenia. I don’t think using human experience as a basis for explaining your argument serves in any way in its interests. Nor does the idea of persons changing roles and subsequently their names. The Bible says that God sent His Son, not that God transformed from being the Father to becoming the Son. There are serious errors in the analogies you’re using.

    I think that many people may have trouble coming to grips with the “Nature of God” question because “omnipotence” can be a difficult subject to grasp.

    This shouldn’t even be a consideration in our discussion. Yahweh never revealed himself in terms of his “essence” or “nature.” He did it in terms of his Person and His relationship to everything else. “Essence” or “nature” is foreign to Biblical thought and thus as futile as determining the botanic class the Tree of Life belonged to.

    If God has the power to listen to all of our prayers at the same time, surely he has the power to continue to run the universe from heaven, and sleep on a boat… at the same time. Or is that “impossible” for God?

    I don’t think our concept of what is possible and impossible with God should be the determining factor in the case of God’s and Jesus’ identity. What the Bible tells us about who God is and what he does should determine our concept of omnipotence. God is Almighty in staying true to His revealed Person. Beyond that cannot be considered Scriptural.
    You said:

    If God takes a physical form, he can subject himself to eating, drinking, sleeping, or being wrestled – as he wishes.

    Of course this is true. IF God takes a physical form, that is. Something else to consider is the fact that God would never act in contradiction to what is emphatically stated. However metaphorical “sleep” in the OT is, whether it refers to the impotence in death or impotence and unawareness as in sleep, sleep still achieves exactly that: impotence and unconsciousness. That is why God doesn’t do that – something Jesus precisely did.

    Concerning the meanings of the words “Father” and “Son” it must be remembered that God is neither a literal father nor a literal son, any more than he is a literal lion or a literal lamb, a literal rock or a literal cornerstone. God uses many names (or titles, if you prefer) which all serve different descriptive purposes. This does not mean that the “Lion of Judah” must be a different person from the “Lamb of God” or that the “Chief Cornerstone” is not the same as the “Rock of our Salvation.” It’s just emphasizing a different aspect with an appropriate name or title.

    I think you’re equivocating here. The Bible uses both metaphor and anthropomorphisms to highlight certain aspects of God and His agents. Anthropomorphism is used to achieve exactly that: human reference. Being called “Father” implies having a son. Jesus being called “Son” identifies him to be the Father’s Son. Anthropomorphically ontologically distinct from each other. The distinction in person is used in the same and immediate context. Different titles for the SAME person are presented in different contexts referring explicitly to the same person. Hence the inappropriateness of this analogy you’re using here.

    You wanted to ask me one specific question, namely, why Jesus said, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” (Mark 10:18, KJV)

    This Scripture does indicate that Jesus isn’t identical to God. By merely replying: “No one is good except God” would be a mere stating of a fact. But Jesus said that after saying “why call ME good?” This is exactly what one expect to hear when a person denies identity to the one referred to.

    Yes, there is none good but one, that is, God. Was Jesus implying that he had the power to grant eternal life? Was Jesus God? Did Jesus call himself good? Actually, yes, he did.

    No, he didn’t. As God’s envoy, and instrument used to give us life, obeying him would be crucial to attaining life, since that is the requirement God laid out. Jesus was given life in himself (Joh. 5:26), something offered even to us (Joh. 6:53). Jesus was not implying anything else than that he is the designated One to save the world, and that we can have a part in it, thanks to His Father, different and distinct from us, enabling all of this.

    In the wilderness, did not God command Moses to *strike* the rock, so that it would bring forth waters, that the people might live? Did God forget that He was the Rock?

    Andrew Patrick, Jesus was as much the literal rock struck by Moses as he was the manna from heaven. Firstly, being the manna from heaven is a prospective metaphor used to show how the real “Manna” would provide everlasting life. The same with the rock. The manna, the rock, and many other things meant, or signified Christ in future. Again these are all inductive arguments which do not measure up to close scrutiny, since a central assumption used by them is, similar titles imply identity. No such thing.

    Then, you answered my questions and I agree with much of what you said. I do find a contradiction, however. To say,

    God has many names and titles, all of which have applications that reveal his nature.

    The Bible is not concerned over God’s nature or essence. These are non-biblical notions never revealed to man according to the Bible. God’s person, his identity is revealed. That we need to determine.

    God is the One God.

    I will thus use this definition of God, referring to him as a person, and not an essence. Ho theos is never used as an essence, unlike the Nicean and subsequent formulas. With this in mind, John. 1:1c does not identify the word as Ho Theos. It explains an attribute of the Word, namely it being divine.

    Revelation (in the real sense of the word) is a book enabling us to see into the spiritual realm of God and Christ. They are always presented as two different and distinct entities. Never identical.

    Looking forward to your reply.

    Jaco

38. on 28 Jan 2010 at 4:22 am38 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Jaco,

    With apologies for being succinct, but in the interests of space:

    1) Your counter-argument basically boils down to a claim that God would be *unable* to sleep on the boat, and to bring on the storms from heaven, at the same time. Please, this is a very silly argument – actually, it’s just a form of sophistry.

    If you actually think this is a valid argument, note that the single Psalm you’re quoting (and avoiding a few others, like Psalm 44:23 and Psalm 78:65) simply says that “he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.”

    Do you believe that God can keep Israel … and sleep on a boat… and listen to your prayers… all at the same time? That’s the crux of this argument. If your answer is “yes, but it’s not in his revealed nature” then that’s your attempt at human reasoning coming into play. This whole episode is about revealing his nature.

    His nature WAS revealed on that boat, and he calmed the storm with a word. The Jews would have been familiar with Psalm 89:8-9, 93:4, 107:28-29, etc… and the Jewish disciples recognized that the waves obeyed *him* (Jesus) and if they didn’t recognize their own Hebrew scriptures then, they most certainly recognized them later.

    However, I think I see where your logic got snagged… you said, “had Jesus been identical to the vigilant God, Yahweh, he would not have fallen asleep.”

    This is the “hamster in a cage” scenario. If you are the hamster. the world is the cage. You see the hand of God in the cage, and reason that it can’t possibly be God, because God lives outside the cage. You reason that God has two eyes, but the hand has no eyes, therefore the hand cannot be God! That’s the end result of Hamster philosophy. Hamsters don’t think big.

    Here’s a question for you: if I have a camera watching you at all times – and I install a second camera that watches you during daylight hours, have I stopped watching you when that second camera goes into its sleep cycle? No. I haven’t.

    2) Now it seems that you have used the “no man can see God” argument. But for that, you not only have to take the original statement out of context, but you also have to “explain away” a superior amount of counter-texts that demonstrate that yes, people have seen God in physical form, on this earth.

    “No man can see God [in his full glory] and live.” See Genesis 33. Moses not only saw God, he talked with him face to face, and he was even allowed to see God in a muted version of His glorified manner.

    1) Moses spoke with God in a physical form, who had a face, and they talked with words
    2) Moses asked to see God in his glory (Exodus 33:18)
    3) God uses the term “face” to refer to “his glory” (verse 20)
    4) God still allows Moses to behold him in a portion of his glory, but withholds his full measure of glory

    And I’m not even bothering going over Adam, Jacob, Joshua, Abraham, etc. You have a lot of plain scripture to argue against if you want to try to use that angle. Besides, you’re going to shoot yourself in the foot, for Jesus himself said, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”

    Job said, “Yet in my flesh shall I see God” (Job 19:25-26)

    That is not a strong argument, and attempting to use it will cost credibility. I’m certain you have more legitimate concerns than constructing word maneuvers (that are doomed to backfire anyway.)

    3) You have entered an argument that all the scriptures that say that men saw God or spoke with God in the bible MUST be mistakes. For this you have composed a rule that if an account refers to the same being as a man, an angel of the LORD, and God, that it must be scaled down to the lowest common denominator.

    That’s flawed reasoning, and un-scriptural. Answer me this: was Gabriel a human being, or an angelic servant of God? Why does scripture refer to him as “the man Gabriel” when he flies in the book of Daniel? your equation says that he must be “downgraded” to a human being.

    Dan 9:21
    (21) Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

    Luk 1:19
    (19) And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings

    Check the scriptures, and confirm this. “Man” simply means “in the form of a man” regardless of whether it is man, God, or angel. “Angel” simply means messenger, although it usually means “supernatural being.” But when it says God, it can only mean God. Anything else has to argue that the scripture doesn’t mean what it says.

    4) The “separate wills” argument does sound reasonable, but it is flawed. Where the text is neutral, you are modifying it slightly that colors it according to your thinking: you are taking this statement out of context.

    When Jesus says, “I can of my own self do nothing” and then explains that his judgment is just “because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me” – he is not giving a dissertation on Unitarianism. Look at the next verse:

    “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.”

    Does that really mean that Jesus was a liar? Besides, this, when he said “I can of my own self do nothing” he just said that judgment belongs to him, and that he has life just as the Father has life.

    Any example of Jesus doing *anything* against the will of God would serve as concrete evidence of “separate wills.*

    Regardless, the Jews understood what Jesus was saying: John 5:18, “[he] said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” Jesus did not deny this.

    This argument hinges a lot upon your definition of the word “will” and “wills” and whether you allow for a normal person to have a conflict of will: for example, no sane person wants to endure pain, but we will choose it to accomplish an ends (like childbirth).

    The reason this argument is not convincing to me, is because those statements are still perfectly compatible if Jesus were demonstrating that he was not exercising a *separate* will. So this point cannot be proven, but I will grant that it is a far better argument than the previous ones.

    5) In your next argument, you are objecting that the names of “Father” and “Son of God” must correlate as strictly as possible to the biological nuclear family model. However, to keep this point brief, you (and Trinitarians alike) have a contradiction from the famous Isaiah 9:6.

    Isa 9:6
    (6) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

    There is no doubt that this refers to Jesus, the Messiah, but one would have to resort to gymnastics such as “God does not mean God” and that “everlasting Father” is not used as a name or title.

    Rev 21:6-7
    (6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
    (7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

    Now, that does not specifically use “the Father” as a name, but those are the words of Christ in red, saying that he is the beginning and the end [title of the LORD God] and that he will be our God. Now, if Jesus is not the LORD God, that’s not only deceptive and a lie, that’s also blasphemy.

    You wrote: “This Scripture does indicate that Jesus isn’t identical to God.”

    I can show you quite a few equivalences, just in the identification of “beginning and end” alone. The phrase is used only SEVEN times (an interesting number) – three times in Isaiah, and only for identifying the only LORD God. And it is used four times in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, for the risen Christ, who we called Jesus.

    6) The “no one is good, save one, that is, God” argument does absolutely nothing to promote Unitarianism without first invoking circular logic. I do not see much point in going around on this more.

    If you have to add your version of *inflection* to the text, and then add meaning based upon your added *inflection* this is an obviously biased method of interpretation.

    Now, it would be different if you just used an imagined interpretation as a springboard to launch a bible study. For example, there are differing opinions concerning the inflection when Jesus says, “upon this rock I will build my church” – but that CAN be proven with scripture study, and the translation can be verified by a simple check of the Greek text.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/15484041/Sham-Rocks

    In the Old Testament Hebrew the Rock was called Jehovah, and in the New Testament Greek the Rock uses the name Jesus. You figure out the obvious indication…

    To summarize the “Jesus was not good” argument:
    a) Jesus called himself Good “I am the Good shepherd”
    b) the only statement says nothing against the divinity of Christ
    c) the only question was never directly answered
    &
    d) if you think Christ made an effort to steer the conversation in a way that would indirectly answer the question, the command of “sell all that you have and follow me” was the true law of “Love God” and “thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
    &
    e) attempting to use that as a conclusive argument for Unitarianism again threatens ones credibility.
    f) If you think Jesus meant “I am not God” then why didn’t he say “I am not God?”

    You wrapped up your argument with a vague reference to a Greek phrase “ho theos.” If you think this is indeed a valid argument, and better than the “God has this power, Jesus did not exercise this power, therefore Jesus is not God” formulas, then perhaps you could explain why you believe this particular phrase is so significant.

    But I don’t want to put words in your mouth in the meantime.

    * * *
    Conclusion
    * * *

    You have presented a theological view of God that is remarkably compatible with the Greek philosophy of the early centuries, of Plato, and Aristotle, that also brought us the “immortal soul” of Athenagoros, and Tertullian, and Augustine.

    For example, where the Hebrew God was personal and passionate, the God that you present remains in distant in the heaven at all times, conducting his work through agents of one sort or another, and never becoming personally involved. Like Plato’s theory of forms, he is perfect, yet invisible. He does not suffer, nor feel pain, and is untouchable.

    Differing from Greek thought, the Hebrew people expressed God not as a sum of powers, but by his nature. God is the Rock. God is my high tower. God is my buckler, my shield, my strength. God is Just, the Judge, he who sits upon the throne, the LORD is my Shepherd.

    The Hebrews expressed the nature of God through names, descriptives, and metaphor, not with an sophistry equations like “God is in heaven. Jesus was on earth. Therefore Jesus is not God.”

    Just like the doctrine of Universalism was a philosophical reaction to the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment, holding the “immortal soul” as its highest tenet, it seems as if Universalism is a reaction to the mystical “Trinity” – yet still maintaining the untouchable uninvolved Father of Greek philosophy, marking “patripassionism” as its high heresy.

    From the beginning, the God of Israel WALKED in the Garden with Adam. He ATE food with Abraham. He RECEIVED TITHES from Abraham as Melchizedek. He WRESTLED with Jacob. He walked FACE TO FACE with Moses. He CARRIED A SWORD when he talked with Joshua. This is the nature of the Hebrew God. That’s what the scriptures plainly say.

    And I’m expected to believe that it would be against his nature to CARRY A CROSS for us? That he would delegate this to a created being?

    1Ti 3:16
    (16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

    Joh 1:14
    (14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    It takes a lot of word wrangling to neutralize those verses, and there’s many more like them.

    You said that Revelation always reveals Jesus and God as two different and distinct entities. Have you read Revelation? That single book is absolutely definitive on this question. “Alpha and Omega” is the obvious translation of “the Aleph and Tau.” The “first and the last” that Jesus uses so liberally was ALWAYS used to identify the only LORD God. The “beginning and the end” also has meaning.

    And when Jesus is identified as being seen by they which pierced him (Rev 1:7) did you ever notice that the LORD identified himself as “he who they pierced” in the Old Testament prophets?

    Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced…

    I’m not just talking about one or two scattered instances of a shade of metaphor. The Revelation of Jesus Christ REVEALS Jesus Christ, in person, in glory, and as God.

    Now, if Jesus were not God, why would he allow people to worship him, and why would he use the names of God, and why would he say that he would be our God? How come you will NEVER see Jesus saying ANYTHING like this?

    Rev 19:10
    (10) And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

    Servants of God do not allow men to worship them, if they have any say in the matter. They do not allow themselves to be called God. Only God allows himself to be called God.

    Joh 20:28-29
    And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

    Jesus did not correct Thomas. He PRAISED him for believing. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a personal God, a God up close, and not a God afar off. He is not ruled by the whims of Greek philosophers who separate *ethos* from *pathos.* He is the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

    Take care,
    -Andrew

    So much for my attempt at brevity to conserve space… Please use my email if you want to talk in a longer discussion (posted on my scribd account.) I don’t know how to make this forum send updates to my account, so a response could sit for months if I don’t find it…

39. on 28 Jan 2010 at 5:44 am39 Xavier

    Andrew,

    Your thorough argumentation contradicts scripture at every turn. i.e. time and time again scripture says no one has or can see God, yet Jesus was God? And God died yet didn’t really die?

40. on 28 Jan 2010 at 8:00 pm40 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Xavier,

    Scripture plainly says that people HAVE seen God.

    Gen 32:30
    (30) And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

    For those that insist that Jacob must have been mistaken,
    1) Why was Jacob told that he had power with God and with men, and hath prevailed? (Gen 32:28)
    2) Why did God confirm that it was He Himself that appeared to Jacob, when he fleddest Esau his brother? (Gen 35:1)

    If you want to claim “time and time again” then give a complete exhaustive listing of all these locations, and then we can compare notes. When Jesus says “no man has seen God at any time.”

    … because the same Jesus who said “no man hath seen God at any time” also said “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”

    If you want to be constructive, start by collecting the relevant verses from both sides. As Jesus said, “the scriptures cannot be broken…” (John 10:35) and “every word of God is pure” (Prov 30:5). Just be prepared to adjust your thinking to the verse, and not the other way around. What is the plain and obvious meaning?

    -Andrew

    P.S. Have you ever played a video game? Have you ever “died” in that game, yet continued to exist outside that virtual world? Seriously, the “Jesus died, God is alive, therefore Jesus is not God” argument is old and tired.

    But what saith the scripture?

    Rev 1:17-18
    (17) And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
    (18) I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

    Who is the first and the last?

    Isa 41:4
    (4) Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.

    Isa 44:6
    (6) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

    Isa 48:11-13
    (11) For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.
    (12) Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
    (13) Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.

    It’s not for us to philosophize the *how* God was born of a virgin, and died on the cross, and was raised from the dead. It’s for us to believe the scriptures.

    1Ti 3:16
    (16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

    Joh 1:10
    (10) He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

    Constructive arguments are more effective than knee-jerk denials. If I’ve said something wrong, show where I’m wrong, and if you contend that my scriptures are uninspired, or that they don’t really mean what they seem to say, then say so.

    Thanks,
    -Andrew

41. on 28 Jan 2010 at 8:49 pm41 Doubting Thomas

    Andrew Patrick
    Your the one that responded to my question when I asked Cameron to just answer me one question then since he didn’t want to spoon feed and respond to the list of quotations I sent him. Your message started started with the words, “You said you just wanted to ask me one question.”

    That’s what I had said to Cameron not to you. I didn’t say anything to you about wanting to ask you just one question. Perhaps you are reading the emails I was sending to Cameron and mistakenly thought I was talking to you????

    I think you are the one that is confused.

    My argument is not circular. It is your argument that is circular. You read the words, “Why call me good. There is only one who is good and that is God alone.” and believe (because of your preconceptions that Jesus is God) that this does not contradict your belief that Jesus is God when it is obvious to anyone with an open mind that it does.

    You are simply trying to twist something he obviously said into something he did not say. Jaco and you have already had this discussion about the logical way to interpret what was said and I certainly can not improve on what Jaco said. You lost the debate with him and now you come to me to try to have a second go at it.

    It is what it is. If you are going to close your mind as to what it obviously says than there is nothing I can say or do that will change your mind. Your mind was made up long before you ever even started even talking to me.

42. on 28 Jan 2010 at 9:01 pm42 Xavier

    Andrew,

    The question we should be asking is, in what sense did these people see God? If scripture in other places clearly says no man can see God and live. Note that “seeing” in the GJohn has been interpertred as “knowing, fully understanding”.

    Ex 33.20; John 5.37; 1Tim 6.16; 1Jn 4.12, 20

    John 1:18: No one has ever seen God, that is, in a full and complete way (cf. 6:46), but some people did see partial revelations [theophanies] of God in the OT. To see God in Christ would be far better (see 14:6). ESV Study Bible

    Many people in the OT claim to have seen God, some even literally as you mentioned. But what or Who did they really see? Note the following examples:

    Then Gideon perceived that he was the angel of the Lord. And Gideon said, “Alas, O Lord God! For now I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face.” But the Lord said to him, “Peace be to you. Do not fear; you shall not die. Judges 6:22-23

    Why does Gideon think he would die because he only saw the angel of the LORD and not the LORD Himself? Because there is a bibilical precedent that when one saw God’s one and only representative, whom YHWH had placed His name in, one was litearlly in th presence of YHWH Himself:

    …the angel of the LORD appeared to [Moses] in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush…God called to him a out of the bush…“I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. Ex 3.2, 4-6

    Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to [Moses] in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush. Acts 7.30

    So now, if to see an angel authorised as the personal representative of YHWH was to see YHWH Himself, how much more His “one-of-a-kind” [monogenes, Jn 1.18] Son?

    Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

    Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? 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? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. John 14:8–11

    John 14:8–11 Philip apparently asks for some sort of appearance by God. In the OT, Moses asked for and was given a limited vision of God’s glory (Ex. 33:18; cf. Ex. 24:10). Isaiah, too, received a vision of God (Isa. 6:1; see John 12:41).

    Jesus is the greater fulfillment of these limited OT events (see also Ezek. 1:26–28). In keeping with OT teaching, Jesus denied the possibility of a direct vision of God (John 5:37; 6:46; cf. 1:18), yet he makes the…assertion that those who have seen him have seen the Father…Philip’s request shows that he has not yet understood the point of Jesus’ coming, namely, to reveal the Father (1:14, 18).

    Like Phillip, “doubring” Thomas finally sees [understands] that “God was in Christ” [2Cor 5.19] in John 20.28. Not that Jesus is the ‘LORD GOD’!

43. on 29 Jan 2010 at 4:07 am43 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Xavier,

    My conclusion is that “to see God” can mean “to witness the full glory of God” or to see the form of God with physical eyes. It’s a flexible word. See what I mean?

    In the case of Jacob and Gideon it is with literal eyes, and Job said that he would see God with his eyes. Genesis 33 is the perfect example of how one could see God with physical eyes, and also how when Moses asked to behold God in glory, God himself used the phrase “no man may see me and live.”

    I’d like to talk about the burning bush. You’ve assumed that this was not God, but a representative. Scripture describes this as:
    1) the angel of the LORD appeared (Exo 3:2, Acts 7:35)
    2) God called from the bush (Exo 3:4,5, Mark 12:26, )

    I would like to point out that the words and actions of God does not in any way indicate that he sent a messenger to repeat his words, or to act like a speaker to transmit his sound, or as a representative to impersonate himself.

    Exo 3:5-6
    (5) And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.
    (6) Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

    There’s no disclaimer of “I bring thee glad tidings from God” or anything like that. The command to remove his shoes says that this was the presence of God – he sanctifies the very dust from his radiance. The message is “I am.” That was no mere representative: that would make these words quite false.

    Consider that perhaps “man” can mean “the form of a man” and “angel” can mean “supernatural” or “messenger” and commonly “supernatural messenger.” This means that all men are men, and some men are called angels, and some angels are called men. But this agrees with scripture.

    However, when the scripture clarifies with “LORD” or “God” it must mean “God” whether the form is a bush, a whirlwind, a cloud, a still small voice, or a man, and if it possesses an element that is obviously supernatural, you know it is of God, i.e. “angel” or “angel of the LORD.”

    * * *

    Concerning Thomas, I will have to say that your interpretation argues against the natural meaning of the text. John started his gospel telling us that in the beginning was the Word, and that Word created the world and walked among us as Jesus, and climaxes with “My Lord and my God.”

    There is something else I want to point out:, that may have pricked the heart of Thomas:

    Joh 20:27
    (27) Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

    Zec 12:10
    (10) And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced…

    Did you notice that Jesus commanded Thomas to reach out his hand and verify where he had been pierced? Why else would the LORD say that they would look upon “me whom they have pierced” in such a personal manner?

    This “divine agency” model doesn’t work. For that matter, how do I even know that I’m talking with Xavier, and not your special agent? You could come to my house and talk to me, but I’d insist that you were not really Xavier, but just his perfect representative.

    I’ll leave you with this thought: the only possible way to perfectly represent God is to actually be God. And the best candidate for that is … God. A person is not defined by their form, a person is defined by their nature.

    Take care,
    -Andrew

44. on 29 Jan 2010 at 9:39 am44 Xavier

    Andrew,

    If your taking the “literal” approach to these men actually having seen the “form, glory of God” then they either should have died when they did, or God Himself lied when he said “no man can see me yet live”.

    I’d like to talk about the burning bush. You’ve assumed that this was not God, but a representative.

    My “assumption” is based on what scripture says:

    The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush… Ex 3.2

    This is confirmed by Stephen in Acts 7.30.

    Now that this “angel of the LORD” later speaks as YHWH Himself, is a clear example and testament to the Hebraic principle of Agency [Shaliach]. Where the representative speaks and acts as the sender. Hence the following remarks by people who are visited by “the angel of the LORD”:

    * Moses thought he was speaking with YHWH Himself in Exodus 3.4-11.

    * Hagar, Sarai’s maid, “called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, “You are a God who sees” [Gen 16.13]; yet was said have to have been visited by….[you guessed it!] “the angel of the LORD” [vv. 7-11].

    * Manoah and his wife were visited by “the angel of the LORD” yet, in Judges 13, they remarked: “We will surely die, for we have seen God.” [v. 22].

    I suggest you also look into the definition of what theophany ["the appearance of God"] means in more depth.

    If you think God can directly, and personally speak with you in the “fallen condition” which the Bible teaches the present creation is in…go ahead.

    But, think about this, what happens when you mix dirty white shirts with chlorine? Here’s a clue:

    Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them…Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away Rev 20.11; 21.1

    If we don’t accept the testimony that Jesus gives of the only invisible, immortal, true God [1Tim 1.17], then we reject both the Father and His Son:

    Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”

    Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”

    “You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”

    I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”

    “Who are you?” they asked.

    “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,” Jesus replied. “I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is trustworthy, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.”

    They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. John 8

    The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

    Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. John 10.24-17

45. on 29 Jan 2010 at 4:12 pm45 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Xavier,

    There is such a thing as “degrees of glory” – as evidenced by the account of Moses, who was told that he could not see the full glory of God, but that God would cover himself with his hand, and Moses would see his back parts, but not his face (see Exodus 33).

    I believe I have demonstrated well enough that “angel” and “angel of the LORD” is not necessarily a designation of genus and species. The example where “the man Gabriel” flies to Daniel in a vision is a good proof of how these phrases were meant to be read.

    However, from what you’ve said, it seems similar to the “Material world bad, spiritual world good” worldview of gnosticism. And while I recognize that you don’t share all of those elements, it is certainly flavored by the Greek philosophy of form, and that God does not cannot share a weakness like passion.

    Gnosticism is a philosophical worldview that stresses special knowledge. The word comes from the Greek ‘gnosis’ meaning knowledge. Gnosticism was prevelant in the first century during and after the time of Christ. It maintains that matter is evil and spirit is good. Because matter is bad human souls, in a sense, are trapped in a material world.

    If this is at the base of your thinking and cannot be challenged, then we’re at a stopping spot. Here’s what you said:

    If you think God can directly, and personally speak with you in the “fallen condition” which the Bible teaches the present creation is in…go ahead.

    Yes, I do believe that God can directly and personally speak with us, and appear on this world, prior to the second coming.

    But you’ve reasoned that God cannot and therefore, you must make the following adjustments in accordance to your worldview: his existence from the beginning of the world must be ignored, the creation by him must be rationalized, the names and titles must be explained away, and in short, you wouldn’t believe God if he looked you in the eye and poked his hand in your side.

    After all, you reason, if I feel a hand in my side, it couldn’t be God, because this world is in a fallen condition, and a perfect God can’t walk in a world in a fallen condition…

    So much for the omnipotence of God.

    So, I’ll leave with a question:

    Gen 3:8
    (8) And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

    Did God actually walk in the garden or not? At this point, man was in his “fallen condition.” Did God have to appoint a special representative to make the footsteps for him after Adam sinned?

46. on 29 Jan 2010 at 6:02 pm46 Doubting Thomas

    Andrew Patrick
    You said, “I will have to say that your interpretaion argues against the natural meaning of the text.”

    I’m not the one that needs to go to another (separate) book in the bible to prove my inerpretation of the text. Your doing everything you can think of short of quoting Plato to twist the text to fit your preconceptions.

47. on 29 Jan 2010 at 6:11 pm47 Andrew Patrick

    For Xavier,

    Concerning the versatility of the word angel:

    Gen 48:15-16
    (15) And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,
    (16) The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

    I consider this a strong example of how “angel” can be proven to apply to the appearance of God. In this case, Israel calls God the “Angel that redeemed me from all evil” and asks him to “bless the lads.”

    It would not be apropiate for Israel to give credit to a mere created angel, regardless of the form he received help or was delivered from evil – but in this case, it is not a specific “evil” or situation he references, but “all evil.”

    My point is that this “Angel” is none other than God, and I don’t see how this could be rationalized any other way.

    That seemed relevant to our discussion, since the sticking point seemed to revolve on whether the word “angel” could include the personal appearance of God, or whether it always meant “spirit being created by God.”

    -Andrew

48. on 29 Jan 2010 at 6:30 pm48 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Doubting Thomas,

    You wrote:

    I’m not the one that needs to go to another (separate) book in the bible to prove my inerpretation of the text. Your doing everything you can think of short of quoting Plato to twist the text to fit your preconceptions.

    Unfortunately, because changing word meaning is such a common tactic in theological studies, it is often necessary to have to prove the meaning of the English words. The most reliable way to do this is to show how it has been used consistently in scripture, through and through.

    Usually, I have to prove the meaning of words like “burn up” and “consumed”, “life,” “death,” and “hell” because these have been assigned meanings far outside the scope of their intended use. For example, as a friend of mine wrote:

    “With a plain word such as perish,
    Could somebody tell me why
    We have turned it inside outward
    til’ it means to never die?”

    -”Peculiar Brother Bird”, http://www.scribd.com/Brother Bird

    In this case, I am being forced to prove the meaning of words like “God” and “Angel of the LORD” and this I am doing from the context of the inspired text, which I maintain has a single author. I am saying we should see “what saith it” before getting carried away with our preconceptions.

    How would you propose that we settle the meaning of a critical word in dispute?

    1) Should we make up whatever we want off the top of our heads?
    2) Or perhaps we should get in a contest of who can pile up more “Doctorates” that agree with us?
    3) Or, perhaps we can all pretend to “go back to the original Hebrew and Greek” and re-translate to match our intended doctrine.

    I fail to see what’s so controversial about proving the meaning of a word by showing how it is used in other passages that are beyond dispute.

    Thomas, if you have a specific disagreement, please state it so we can discuss it, so it can be analyzed rationally and reasonably. You are being so vague that I’m having to guess at your meaning.

    -Andrew

49. on 29 Jan 2010 at 7:05 pm49 Doubting Thomas

    Andrew Patrick (msg. 48)
    You said, “Unfortunately changing word meaning is such a common tactic…..”

    I’m not the one changing word meanings. What word in “Why call me good? There is only one who is good and that is God alone” are you accusing me of changing the meaning of???

    You certainly are good at talking in circles and sounding like your actually saying something when your really just obfuscating the obvious.

    You might be the master of obfuscation. But obfuscation is not a valid argument.

50. on 29 Jan 2010 at 8:46 pm50 robert

    Andrew
    In your belief is God the one and the same as Jesus on earth and in heaven not seperate in any way.
    Was and is Jesus 100% god and 100% human on earth and in heaven.
    I understand binitarians and trinitarians claims but you seem to be neither.

51. on 29 Jan 2010 at 9:06 pm51 Xavier

    Andrew,

    …you wouldn’t believe God if he looked you in the eye and poked his hand in your side.

    Your not even believing the testimony the Son gave regarding the One God of Israel, why and how would you believe the Person Himself?

    I’m assuming that before “the fall” the first humans were perfected beings, in a perfected, uncorrupted world. So yes, I do not see why they wouldn’t have been able to “physically” commune with the One Creator.

    Note that there is neither a triune nor a Oneness God here.

    Yes, we’re “at a stopping point” because you choose to ignore and gloss over all the scriptural evidence regarding the Biblical precedent of Divine Agency and the simple fact that the only way towards redemption and a coming back into communion with the One Holy God of Israel is through our brother and lord Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.

    What exactly is gnostic about anything I have argued for [with scripture] and tried to make you see here?

52. on 29 Jan 2010 at 9:49 pm52 Ray

    As far as people seeing God and no man ever having seen God,
    those two statements are not a contradiction, necessarily.

    As men we could use words in contradiction, but when there is a sense in how words are used, or an interpretation of a thing, there
    need not be a contradiction.

    It seems to me that no man on this earth saw God in the way that Jesus saw him when he was with him before the world began. That’s one way in which we could say that though he was seen by men, he was not yet seen by them. That’s not a contradiction, it’s a manner of saying something. What is said isn’t always what we hear.

    Jesus often stretched our ability or our willingness to hear when he ministered in the days of his flesh here on this earth. I believe he still does the same today.

    Have I seen the world? I suppose if I say “No, I haven’t.” , one might wonder if I am blind, for I’ve lived here many years, yet if I say that I have, one might think I am a world traveler, which I am not.

53. on 29 Jan 2010 at 11:14 pm53 Doubting Thomas

    Ray
    I don’t mean to change the subject but I just wanted to ask you a question. I thought you had said that in Dean Braxton’s book that everyone including the angels were worshiping Jesus and there was a special worship for God where God’s voice was worshiping God.

    If I am mistaken please let me know. I am just trying to understand your thoughts…..

54. on 30 Jan 2010 at 3:06 am54 Andrew Patrick

    [Replies for Thomas, Robert, and Xavier, and an open question for everyone at the last...]

    For Thomas –

    Thomas wrote:

    You certainly are good at talking in circles and sounding like your actually saying something when your really just obfuscating the obvious.

    You might be the master of obfuscation. But obfuscation is not a valid argument.

    Your arguments depend on changing the word meanings for “God” and “angel” and “why”

    1) “God” becomes “a representative of God” and can never mean “God” in the case of a clear manifestation

    2) “angel” becomes a strict expression of “the genus and species of created spirit being”

    3) “Why” becomes “Do not” so that Jesus can be cited as saying “Do not callest me good.”

    You are becoming upset when I demonstrate that the scriptures themselves use the words differently. If you’re just going to be accusatory and not actually bring any points to discuss, there’s no point in continuing.

    * * *

    For Robert –

    Robert wrote:

    In your belief is God the one and the same as Jesus on earth and in heaven not separate in any way?

    Jesus was God, bearing our all the infirmities normally endured by mortal man. It seems to me that he kept himself separate during those 33+ years, save communicating with himself by prayer.

    I don’t want to get dragged into too much speculation of the mechanics of how God does this. But I do know that he can pay full attention to your prayer, and my prayer, and a million other prayers, all at once.

    And I trust that he is capable of sitting down to play a fair game of cards, without cheating, while running the universe, at the same time.

    There has been a lot of science-fiction scenarios where a man time-travels back, and then he exists in two places at once, and maybe gives specific information (power) to his weaker self.

    I think that it’s simpler just to remember that God really can be in two places at once: and in one of those places, he can limit himself as he chooses, and in the other, he can still use his full powers of omnipotence.

    Robert wrote:

    Was and is Jesus 100% god and 100% human on earth and in heaven? I understand binitarians and trinitarians claims but you seem to be neither.

    We as humans are not defined by our form, or our shape, or our powers. As a man, I can walk. But if I am not walking, am I still a man? I have legs: if I lose my legs, am I still myself?

    Likewise, if God planned to set aside the glory of heaven and show that he can endure the experiences of a human lifespan, just like us, is he still God, even if *gasp* people see him?

    We expect a lawyer or a stock broker to remain confidentiality, and act as if he did not have certain information in his other dealings. Can God walk within his creation, retaining “confidentiality” by not invoking the overwhelming powers of heaven, and still operate from outside of creation at the same time?

    No, I am not Trinitarian. I am not Binitarian. I am not Unitarian. But your answers to 100% God and 100% human all depends on how you’re defining “God” and “human.” If you mean “the true God” by “God” and “the experience and limitations of the form of man” then I would agree.

    For Xavier –

    Xavier wrote:

    I’m assuming that before “the fall” the first humans were perfected beings, in a perfected, uncorrupted world. So yes, I do not see why they wouldn’t have been able to “physically” commune with the One Creator.

    You just dodged the question. Genesis 3:8 was after the corruption of sin, in a corrupted world. So, after Satan sinned and Adam fell, did he have to hire a “divine representative” so he wouldn’t get polluted by his own creation, or not? Who made those footsteps?

    But you did just allow God to talk with Adam and Eve before they sinned. So I think we are getting somewhere… just tell me when the earth becomes so “corrupted” that he cannot enter it anymore. If those were his footsteps in the garden, what difference does it make if the sinful human population is two, or two billion?

    And what about after the flood? Can God enter it again then? And if so, for how long before the background sin radiation count gets too unbearable for him again?

    Xavier wrote:

    Note that there is neither a triune nor a Oneness God here.

    Xavier, if there was not One God in the garden of Eden, then how many Gods were there? Are you counting “God does not vanish from heaven” as one God and “God walking in the Garden” as a second God?

    I think you’re trying so hard to object that you’re not listening carefully to what you’re saying. But consider this: if Eve were Unitarian, she would have said “the representative of God said that in the day we eateth thereof, we shall surely die…”

    Xavier wrote:

    What exactly is gnostic about anything I have argued for [with scripture] and tried to make you see here?

    That would be your positions of:
    1) Material World Bad,
    2) God cannot risk being polluted by [corrupted] Creation
    3) God has to designate others to deal with it so he will not get infected in the meantime

    The full-fledged Gnostics had God creating another god who then created the universe…. As I understand it, the Jehovah Witness doctrine is very closely Gnostic in this regard: they have designated Jesus as that lesser “god.” I didn’t say you were a full-fledged Gnostic, just that you expressed had some of its elements.

    Xavier wrote:

    Yes, we’re “at a stopping point” because you choose to ignore and gloss over all the scriptural evidence regarding the Biblical precedent of Divine Agency…

    Really? Where is this biblical precedent of Divine Agency? Is it expressed in the Garden of Eden? It seems to me that your idea of Divine Agency is that God ALWAYS assigns a flunkie for everything, and doesn’t step into creation for fear of cooties! That is an example of Greek gnostic thinking.

    Xavier wrote:

    …and the simple fact that the only way towards redemption and a coming back into communion with the One Holy God of Israel is through our brother and lord Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.

    Of all things, how do you accuse me of denying redemption to God through Christ? (and I must guess here, because you didn’t substantiate yourself at all) … if you have a problem with Jesus saying that he will be our God (Rev 21:7) take it up with him when he returns.

    Rev 21:6-7
    (6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
    (7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

    Concluding,

    It seems to me that there are three types of Unitarians,
    1) Those that are reacting against the Trinity doctrine
    2) Those that are truly concerned about worshiping the True God
    3) Those that will not accept Jesus Christ as the True God

    Thus, I would like to ask everyone to consider carefully: why do you believe what you believe? If the motivation is first and foremost to reject the deity of Christ, I probably cannot persuade you.

    But if your motivation is to faithfully serve God as he is revealed, would it be a great blow to your faith if Jesus really was your God, in the flesh, who will reveal himself as in that final day, when every eye shall see him? Am I not preaching One God, when I say that the Almighty (Revelation 1:8) is the same as he whom they pierced? (Zech 12:10).

    * * *
    For Everyone,

    If you believe that Jesus was a mere mortal, then how was Jesus saved? Why did he already have eternal life? Was he saved by his own works and sinlessness, and if so, why couldn’t anyone?

    And doesn’t it seem a little bit risky picking a free-willed man as the Messiah for the rest of the world? What guarantee did God have that Jesus would be a sinless sacrifice, from before he was conceived, if you think he really did have a separate will? This “Messiah” prophecy was already set – it could not be rescheduled, or His word would be broken.

    In other words, if you believe Jesus was a separate person, then he had the power to make or break God at will, even on a whim: if he made one prophecy fail, if he once sinned against God, God would be a liar. There are three possibilities:

    1) God took a huge risk and gambled – the devil could have won, and all odds were in the favor of evil, because all other free-willed men have sinned. God was held hostage by a man.

    Rom 3:23
    (23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

    2) God overrode the will of a mortal to make sure – when Jesus would have sinned, God kicked in the manual override. This would mean that Jesus was not really sinless, rather he was just prevented from being capable of these thoughts or actions.

    2a) Alternatively, you might just claim that there is no such thing as free will, like the Calvinists do.

    3) God knew what the Messiah would do, because he was that Messiah, and he alone is the standard of just, perfect, and sinless, and he loves us that much to do the job personally.

    er 23:6
    (6) In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

    Take care,
    -Andrew

55. on 30 Jan 2010 at 5:56 am55 Xavier

    Andrew,

    Thank you for taking the time to answer me, it seems we’re bombarding you from different directions. So, let me just ask this, could you define for me exactly what your theology is? Are you Oneness [i.e. Jesus is YHWH, and the Spirit] or what?

    If you are Oneness and you totally reject the intermediators YHWH is said to use in the scriptures, why isn’t this spelled out clearly in the scriptures? Why the charade of “the Father loves the Son” etc., if it meant Jesus is the one and the same YHWH?

56. on 30 Jan 2010 at 9:17 am56 Doubting Thomas

    Andrew Patrick (msg. 54)
    You said, “Your arguments depend on changing the word meanings for “God” and “Angel” and “Why”…… 3. “Why” becomes “Do Not” so that Jesus can be cited as saying, “Do not callest me good.”

    If Jesus were God (who is the source of all that is good) walking around in the flesh and he said, “Why callest ME good? There is ONLY ONE who is good and that is God ALONE.” Then he was clearly misleading or deceiving the young rich man.

    But I’ve already pointed this out before and you just continue to make the same allegations about me misrepresenting the meaning of the scripture. You can see why we are all growing tired of talking to someone who refuses to listen to anything that doesn’t fit his preconceptions that he had long before he even first opened the bible to study it.

    Lets try talking about another subject since we are just going around in circles on this particular quotation.

    (Mark 14:62)
    “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

    How can Jesus be sitting at the right hand of God if Jesus and God are in reality one person? (And please don’t quote half the New Testament cannon in your answer).

    By the way I am not angry I just like calling a spade a spade…..

57. on 30 Jan 2010 at 2:37 pm57 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Xavier,

    Xavier wrote:
    

    So, let me just ask this, could you define for me exactly what your theology is? Are you Oneness [i.e. Jesus is YHWH, and the Spirit] or what?

    I’ve never talked with a “Oneness” person, so I don’t know what exactly they teach or use for support, but that’s probably the closest “generalization” that you would recognize.

    Xavier wrote:
    

    If you are Oneness and you totally reject the intermediators YHWH is said to use in the scriptures, why isn’t this spelled out clearly in the scriptures?

    Aren’t you jumping ahead of yourself here? You haven’t cited any concrete examples. Am I supposed to construct your argument against myself, and then answer the argument I presumed to create?

    For the sake of moving things along, although God has appeared to men at various times, they have not been very public. I don’t see the words “divine agency” in scripture, but I do see the word “prophets”

    2Pe 1:21
    (21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

    Heb 1:1
    (1) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

    I’ll translate: “sundry times” means here, and there, and divers manners includes in the Garden, as Melchizedek the high priest of God, as the wrestler, in a vision, in a whirlwind, in a still small voice, in a burning bush…

    You might consider the prophets as “agents” but you may have forgotten something: who spoke to the prophets? God sometimes uses angels (like the man Gabriel) but sometimes he appears personally.

    Keep reading in Hebrews. I’ll hold back for now because I’ve been requested to avoid citing half the canon in each post. But it keeps going with exactly what I’ve been trying to communicate here…

    Xavier wrote:
    

    Why the charade of “the Father loves the Son” etc., if it meant Jesus is the one and the same YHWH?

    I could give some good reasons:
    1) Jesus didn’t even openly advertise that he was the Messiah. Why the charade? If he had said “I am your Messiah” to 5000 people in one day, how would the scriptures have been fulfilled? (see Matt 26:54)

    2) People are good at acting one way when in front of an authority figure that can smash them or zap them with lightning, and they act quite another way when they think they aren’t being watched. How would anyone believe that in their wickedness they would kill Him, if they could, unless he actually gave them the opportunity?

    3) God has a nature of putting things out there to be found, to be read, for connections to be made, but not shoving these things in our face. Those that will deny will deny, but for those that will seek, they shall find. Did he not ask his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” And did he not follow with “But who do you say that I am?” He prompted them with questions, rather than force-feeding them before they were ready.

    Mat 13:10-11
    (10) And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
    (11) He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

    In other words, Christ spoke with indirection so that the prophesied crucifixion should be fulfilled, so that we would reveal our true nature, and so he would not frighten them out of their wits.

    The parable-analogy of “the Father” and “the Son” is not inaccurate, but I think you’ve been trying to apply it too literally. Is he not also the “bread which came down from heaven?” (John 6:58) Are we not supposed to eat his flesh and drink his blood? (John 6:53)

    If you want a more in-depth proofs and demonstrations, I’ll require permission to use more space.

    Thanks,
    -Andrew

58. on 30 Jan 2010 at 4:07 pm58 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Doubting Thomas,

    Doubting Thomas wrote:

    If Jesus were God (who is the source of all that is good) walking around in the flesh and he said, “Why callest ME good? There is ONLY ONE who is good and that is God ALONE.” Then he was clearly misleading or deceiving the young rich man.

    Concerning your perspective of “Why callest thou me good?”
    1) What version are you quoting? That’s not how my KJV reads.
    2) Is the all-caps emphasis you are using in the Greek Text?
    3) If you do not believe that the all-caps changes the meaning, then why are you using it?

    You are attempting to insert emphasis, and then insist that your interpretation of that emphasis (that you added) is the gospel truth. That is “misrepresenting.”

    So how was Jesus misleading? That man came and asked for eternal life. No prophet has even had the power or jurisdiction to grant eternal life. That man was asking for something that only God could grant.

    If that young ruler had truly recognized what he was saying, he would have been willing to Love God with all his heart, sacrifice his riches and follow Christ. Jesus was good at delivering rebukes, to the Pharisees, to Satan, even to Peter. This man received no such rebuke, rather it said that Jesus “loved him.”

    Doubting Thomas wrote:
    

    You can see why we are all growing tired of talking to someone who refuses to listen to anything that doesn’t fit his preconceptions that he had long before he even first opened the bible to study it.

    That sounds a lot like an ad hominem attack. Well then, Thomas, since you must know all about me, tell me something about my “preconceptions” before I ever “first opened the bible to study it?” If you are such a prophet, please say something to substantiate your claim here. I insist.

    Doubting Thomas wrote:

    Lets try talking about another subject since we are just going around in circles on this particular quotation.

    (Mark 14:62)
    “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

    How can Jesus be sitting at the right hand of God if Jesus and God are in reality one person? (And please don’t quote half the New Testament cannon in your answer).

    What Version are you quoting from, Thomas? That’s a seriously flawed translation. No wonder it seems confusing.

    Mar 14:62 Authorized Version
    (62) And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

    That word which your translation renders as “Mighty One” is Strong’s G1411, dunamis. and is translated in the KJV as works, power, ability, virtue, miracle, etc… NEVER as a PERSON. It’s used 120 times in the New Testament, and never once that would be consistent with that rendering of “Mighty One.”

    So I have on final answer for you: you’re reading from a flawed translation that probably has a Unitarian doctrinal bias. Unfortunately, even if you see a better translation, first impressions are hard to shake.

    Also, what happened to the ego emie that the KJV, Douay-Rheims, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Geneva, etc, rendered as “I am?” Your Bible totally omitted those two Greek words. Seriously, what Bible are you using?

    At places like this, this matters. That’s the same phrase translated as “I am” when Jesus said “Before Abraham was, I am.” (Jon 8:58) and “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” in Matthew 22:32.

    * But, I shall be chivalrous…

    I acknowledge that there are a couple places where it speaks of Jesus as seated at the right hand of God, i.e. Mark 16:19, and Acts 7:55-56. You asked me not to cite the entire canon, but I’m going to require a little space since I’m having to adapt to your question.

    So please, for the sake of discussion, I will ask if you would like me to answer what you meant to ask, as presented in Acts:

    Act 7:55-56
    (55) But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
    (56) And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

    Answer:
    I think that “standing on the right hand of God” means the same as the “sat at the right hand of God” of Mark 16:19. In other words, “sat” vs. “seated” is inconsequential, except it demonstrates that this may be interpreted metaphorically.

    Also notice, that in the vision of Stephen,

    1) It was a vision, and like all visions, might contain metaphor, such as the famous vision of John on Patmos where he saw the Christ coming into his kingdom (before John tasted death)

    2) Stephen does not describe dialogue between two people, or interaction between two people. He say he saw “the glory of God” – and if that is what he meant by God, he saw Jesus in full control of that awesome power. Did he mean “overwhelming power and light and presence?” We aren’t given more detail.

    Thus, “the right hand of God” does not require that there be a literal hand. It does have metaphorical meaning. Likewise, a similar metaphor is also used for Christ in Isaiah:

    Joh 12:38
    (38) That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

    Here’s one more interesting use of right hand I’ve been noticing recently.

    Rev 1:17
    (17) And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

    Why does it not just say hand? Is this a teaching that the “first and the last” is right-handed? Just a thought. Maybe it’s nothing, but I don’t think our Bible wastes many words. Or maybe it is supposed to link to the “arm of the Lord” and “on the right hand of God.” The more I read, the more I notice things like that.

    Summary:

    1) “Why callest thou me good?” was asked, because the man asked for something only God could grant (and Christ wanted the man to think about what he just said…)

    2) Please be careful before accusing someone else of blindly defending “preconceptions” that they had before they ever “opened by bible to study it” – be ready to back up your words.

    3) The bible you are quoting omits words from the Greek text, and mistranslates other words, and these changes do make a difference. What translation is that?

    4) The “right hand of God” is metaphorical for “commanding the power of God” and does not prove multiple personalities. I used the vision of Stephen in Acts because I thought that put your argument in its best possible light (short of resorting to a biased translation.)

    Thanks,
    -Andrew

59. on 30 Jan 2010 at 4:38 pm59 robert

    Andrew
    So you believe God manifest himselfs into 2 or more beings whenever the necessary arises.
    So when He was Jesus on earth He was also in heaven on His Throne.
    I have no problem with His ability to do this but have to dispute that he ever has or did when it comes to Jesus.
    The fact that Jesus NOW sits at the right hand of God shows they are 2 separate, completely different beings because there is no need to manifest yourself into 2 beings when your side by side.
    there are many more verses that totally shoot your theory out of the water like why would he be refered to as a man once he return back to himself.
    your belief is as fictional as the trinity.
    I believe God did come to earth to dwell in the Human being Jesus after His baptism thru the Holy spirit.
    Now the connection between God and The Holy spirit would be simular to your God and Jesus theory.
    The Holy spirit is God by Power and Word but isnt a separate being just a separate manifestation of the One God.
    The Holy spirit was the God that dwelled in Jesus and was promised to dwell in us when we receive the Holy spirit.

60. on 30 Jan 2010 at 8:33 pm60 Xavier

    Andrew,

    I see you have a lot of time in your hands, more than me it seems.

    You haven’t cited any concrete examples.

    Are you kidding me? Go back and read some of my posts.

    1) Jesus didn’t even openly advertise that he was the Messiah.

    Why don’t you go back and re-read the verses I quoted to you in the GJohn where Jesus clearly says he is the Messiah. If not, then I guess you do not believe the testimony of the Apostles themseleves [cp. Mat 16.16] and what the NT writers tell us about who Jesus is:

    But these are written so that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him [as Messiah and Son of God] you will have life by the power of his name. John 20.31 [cp. Mat 2.4; 11.2; 23.10; Lu 3.15; John 1.41]

    The parable-analogy of “the Father” and “the Son” is not inaccurate, but I think you’ve been trying to apply it too literally.

    Its not me friend, its the scriptures. The virgin birth accounts of Matthew and Luke seem to be making a literal point about God creating and fathering a Son through His spirit [cp. Lu 1.30-35; Jon 1.14, 18; 3.16].

    According to your view [Oneness?], this explicit and clear “Father/Son relationship” is for naught.

61. on 30 Jan 2010 at 9:20 pm61 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Xavier,

    I didn’t say that Jesus didn’t tell anyone that he was the Messiah, just that he did not openly advertise it. If you think back, remember that this was a question at his trial. If it was public knowledge, they wouldn’t have had to ask him.

    Also, you cited the narrative of the gospel of John to try to demonstrate that Jesus openly advertised that he was the Messiah… but what you quoted was written after Jesus ascended to heaven.

    By that time, it was no longer a secret: he was not only the Messiah, he was the the LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle, the LORD of hosts. Look at Peter’s speech in Acts 2: he is obviously alluding to the Psalms left and right: did he not say that David himself has not ascended to heaven?

    Xavier wrote:

    According to your view [Oneness?], this explicit and clear “Father/Son relationship” is for naught.

    Perhaps you could make a little presentation that demonstrates what you mean by this “explicit and clear Father/Son relationship.”

    1) You would need to demonstrate how the scriptures prove evidence of a nuclear family model.

    2) You would have to disprove that this could not simply be a indirect fashion of speaking, concerning God outside his creation, and God as Christ within his creation, a method of speaking in parable.

    Regardless, you are judging based on your feelings right now. Feelings should follow logic, and logically, you have to deal with the fact that our Bible names the risen Christ as LORD: that’s why 3000 people were baptized that day on Pentecost.

    Xavier: This does make a difference, so please answer directly. Has David ascended to heaven? If not David, has anyone ascended to heaven? Abraham, Lazarus, Job, Abel, John the Baptist, or Peter? And finally, did Jesus ascend to heaven?

    Take care,
    -Andrew

62. on 30 Jan 2010 at 9:40 pm62 Xavier

    Andrew,

    you have to deal with the fact that our Bible names the risen Christ as LORD: that’s why 3000 people were baptized that day on Pentecost.

    Has it ever occured to you that in Peter’s sermon he clearly states that “this Jesus of Nazareth HAS BEEN MADE LORD CHRIST”, not LORD GOD! Big difference my friend.

    And yes, yes, yes, Jesus is the only human being who has ascended to heaven. More than that though, he has been placed at the right Hand of Power, the proper place for a Son to be next to his God and Father!

    Again, Jesus HAS BEEN made “lord Messiah over all”, and not LORD GOD ALMIGHTY”. Its really not that hard Andrew, try it and see.

63. on 30 Jan 2010 at 9:52 pm63 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Robert,

    Robert wrote:

    The fact that Jesus NOW sits at the right hand of God shows they are 2 separate, completely different beings because there is no need to manifest yourself into 2 beings when your side by side.

    I’m counting exactly nine instances where my the King James makes reference to Christ being seated (or standing) on the right hand of God. There are two possible interpretations.
    1) It means that God and Jesus have physical bodies and literal right hands, and these scriptures are about place settings
    2) It’s a metaphor, representing all power and authority.

    Mat 28:17-18
    (17) And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
    (18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

    If you think this has nothing to do with power and authority, then I am interested in hearing your answer to a question from the following scripture:

    Eph 2:4-5
    (5) Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
    (6) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

    Not too long ago, I was talking with a group that pointed to that scripture in Ephesians 2, to argue that they were already in heaven. They argued that it says “raised up” in the present tense, and that “The bible says I am already seated in heaven.” So, my question is;

    So, the question is: Is this verse in Ephesians talking about literally sitting on a chair?

    If not, if you think this has a greater meaning, then why wouldn’t “seated at the right hand of God” also have a similar meaning as it is used nine times in our New Testament?

    Also, Consider that not once in my Bible does it say that Jesus is seated at the right hand of the “Father” – which you would expect to see at least once, if the purpose was to tell us that there are “two different people.”

    Robert wrote:

    there are many more verses that totally shoot your theory out of the water like why would he be refered to as a man once he return back to himself.

    That wasn’t a verse, Robert, that was a generalization. If you want an answer, please present a source text.

    But here’s an easy answer for you: have you ever heard of General George Washington? If so, how come he is called a general when he is no longer a general anymore? (George died a long time ago.) The answer is because you are speaking of George in the role he played as General. It doesn’t mean that he’s still a general.

    One real question I’d like to hear your answer for, concerning:

    I believe God did come to earth to dwell in the Human being Jesus after His baptism thru the Holy spirit.

    Question: If you believe Jesus was a regular man, like you and me, how did he remain sinless until his 30th year until his baptism by John? Or do you believe he was only sinless after he received the Holy Spirit, and if so, how does he qualify as a lamb without spot or blemish? (1 Peter 1:19)

    Rom 3:23
    (23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

    Thanks,
    -Andrew

64. on 30 Jan 2010 at 11:10 pm64 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Xavier,

    I can almost sense outrage in your post 62 above, but Peter most certainly did name the risen Jesus as Messiah and LORD [YHWH] and he did it by the scriptures. If you cannot see this, you are not thinking like a Hebrew. Let’s take a look at Peter’s sermon:

    Act 2:16
    (16) But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

    Acts 2:17-21 Peter cites Joel 2:28-32…
    Acts 2:22-23 Peter introduces Jesus of Nazareth whom they have slain…

    Act 2:24
    (24) Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

    Acts 2:25-27 David cites the Psalm of David, specifically Psalm 16:8-10 … “thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, either suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.”

    Act 2:29-35
    (29) Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

    * Where is David, Xavier? Is David in heaven? Peter says he isn’t.

    (30) Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
    (31) He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
    (32) This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

    * Is there any dispute that Jesus was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven? If not, let’s continue with the sermon.

    (33) Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
    (34) For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
    (35) Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

    * Peter just referenced two important scriptures:
    1) Psalm 24, by his allusion to the Psalmist who has not ascended to heaven.
    2) Psalm 110, by his quotation of “The LORD said unto my Lord”

    I’m going to force your attention to this Psalm, which everyone here on this board seems to be avoiding. For in the 22nd Psalm, we read of Christ’s crucifixion, and in the 23rd Psalm, we read about the valley of the shadow of death, but in the 24th Psalm, it speaks of only one person who will ascend to heaven.

    Psa 24:3-10
    (3) Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?
    (4) He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.
    (5) He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.

    Are you with this so far? Is there any question about the “hill of the LORD” or what it means to “stand in his holy place?” Is there any disagreement about what is meant by having clean hands, and a pure heart?

    (6) This is the generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face, O Jacob. Selah.
    (7) Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.

    Who is this King of Glory that it’s talking about? Whoever he is, he is innocent, pure, and receives his blessing from the God of his salvation and stands in his holy place.

    Xavier wrote:

    And yes, yes, yes, Jesus is the only human being who has ascended to heaven. More than that though, he has been placed at the right Hand of Power, the proper place for a Son to be next to his God and Father!

    ascended to heaven … check.

    (8) Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle.

    Did you catch that?

    (9) Lift up your heads, O ye gates; even lift them up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.
    (10) Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory. Selah.

    No one can argue that Peter is not preaching from the Psalms, and he emphasized twice that David was dead and buried, and that David had not ascended to heaven. There isn’t much mentioning of ascending to heaven at all in the Bible, so there’s little possibility of confusion.

    Additionally, his Jewish audience would recognize these Psalms! Peter was not preaching to philosophers at Mars Hill about the “unknown God!” They recognized David, and considered the Psalms as inspired. He is not preaching to Greeks, he is preaching to all the house of Israel!

    With this context in mind, now read the next verse:

    Act 2:36
    (36) Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

    Begone with Unitarian claims that this “Lord” simply means “inferior earthly ruler.” The Psalms did not name the King of Glory as a mere adonai but as the LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle, the LORD of Hosts.

    That “LORD” of the Old Testament is none other than JEHOVAH..

    Act 2:37
    (37) Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

    Peter didn’t have to recite the 22nd Psalm, and likewise he didn’t have to recite the 24th Psalm. The King of Glory ascends to heaven, receives his blessing from the LORD, and is the LORD of Hosts. They knew their own Psalms!

    Joh 3:13
    (13) And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

    Joh 6:62
    (62) What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

    Joh 20:17
    (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.

    Act 1:9-11
    (9) And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
    (10) And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
    (11) Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

    Justin Martyr said in 158 AD, that if you were to come across some that call themselves Christians, but they say they go to heaven when they die, they deny the resurrection, and they blaspheme against the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and count them not Christian.

    (Because any man that would claim that he would ascend to heaven when he died was claiming the rightful inheritance of that King of Glory.)

    And Justin did not hesitate to point the 2nd century Jew to the 24th Psalm, to show him how how Jesus, this King of Glory, was none other than the LORD God of the King David. That is the doctrine of the first and second century church, from the Hebrew scriptures, and from the Gospels.

    Now, the God theory of the Greek philosophers would not permit this: their God must be perfect, distant, invisible, untouchable, uninvolved, unmovable, and unable to suffer. But Peter was not preaching to the Greeks: he was preaching to Jews, and he was preaching from the Psalms.

    And that is why 3000 were baptized that day.

    Xavier wrote:

    Again, Jesus HAS BEEN made “lord Messiah over all”, and not LORD GOD ALMIGHTY”. Its really not that hard Andrew, try it and see.

    Since you already admitted that:
    1) Jesus ascended to heaven, and
    2) That no other man has ascended to heaven

    Then you have named the King of Glory as Christ Jesus, and the Psalmist that Peter quotes names this King of Glory as the LORD of Hosts, that is, Lord God Almighty.

    And if you’re willing to read the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, this same Jesus is called he who they pierced, Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, and …the Almighty.

    As you can see, Xavier, it’s not that hard. You just have to pay attention to the actual words of Peter’s sermon, stop thinking like a Greek, and think like a Hebrew.

    Luk 24:25-27
    (25) Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
    (26) Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
    (27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

    Joh 5:39
    (39) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

65. on 30 Jan 2010 at 11:43 pm65 Ray

    I believe David is with God in heaven and that God is the God of the living and not the dead. It seems to me that Jesus is the only man that ever bodily ascended into heaven after his resurrection, something that the prophets like David prophesied.

    I’ve read about people that have seen and talked with people we read about in the Bible, in visions and dreams. One man was taken to heaven by the spirit of God upon his death and was told to go back to this earth because is wasn’t his time by the Lord.

    It seems to me that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are in heaven because God is not the God of the dead but of the living.

    I do not believe that the people who have experienced heaven through dreams, visions, and even being taken to heaven after they have died, and returned, that I have heard from, deny the resurrection. I have not heard them deny the resurrection. I don’t believe that they do deny it, though some may say that those that
    believe Christians go to the presence of the Lord upon their being
    absent from their bodies at the time of death, by the spirit of God, deny the resurrection of the dead.

    Though some may say that these people deny the resurrection of the dead, that has not been my experience. I have not witnessed it.

66. on 30 Jan 2010 at 11:45 pm66 Xavier

    Andrew,

    So YHWH was “dead and buried”?

    By the way, how many YHWHs are we talking about here? According to Psal 110.1 [the most cited OT verse by the NT writers] and Deu 6.4 there is ONLY ONE WHO IS YHWH and only one who is “lord” [adoni, human designated title] Messiah [cp. 1Cor 8.4-6].

    Is Jesus is YHWH, WHO raised him and exalted him into His own heaven??

    Your arguments regarding Jesus being the King of glory because only YHWH is in heaven, therefore they must be one and the same person is…well…I better do as James advices and put “bits into my mouth” and a “very small rudder” to my ship so as not to stumble [James 3].

    And yes, I am outraged by your argumentations and misapplication of scripture. So, I’ll leave it at that and agree to disagree with you friend.

    Good luck.

67. on 30 Jan 2010 at 11:49 pm67 robert

    Andrew
    Yes Jesus was sinless for the 30 years on HIS OWN .
    He did this by faith in the written Word of God.
    This is what qualified Him to be the Lamb of God not the inability to sin. God foreseen this perfect Human Being and Gave prophecies to His prophets to foretell of him.
    Of course you sidestepped the issue in my last post by not addressing why God is 2 manifestations while He is side by side with himself in heaven
    Why would God need to do such a thing?
    Is God and Jesus now in heaven or is it just God or just Jesus.

68. on 30 Jan 2010 at 11:52 pm68 Ray

    If I am to answer who I believe Jesus is, I can say he is the Christ, the Son of the living God, but if I am asked “what” Jesus is, I think I could answer, “The Almighty God.”, that’s what he is, and it’s not robbery to say so.

69. on 31 Jan 2010 at 12:02 am69 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Ray,

    Ray wrote:

    I’ve read about people that have seen and talked with people we read about in the Bible, in visions and dreams. One man was taken to heaven by the spirit of God upon his death and was told to go back to this earth because is wasn’t his time by the Lord.

    Like Don Piper? His head was squished like a toothpaste tube. I’m not going to say for sure that he lying, but I will say that even if he thinks he is sincere,
    1) You can see all sorts of things when you suffer injury like that
    2) There’s a lot of scripture saying that the dead are plainly dead, they have no memory, it’s the land of forgetfulness, darkness, etc.

    Ray wrote:

    It seems to me that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are in heaven because God is not the God of the dead but of the living.

    Then you take away Christ’s own argument and make it of none effect, because he said this to prove the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees.

    Why did Jesus answer that in the resurrection that they would neither marry or give in marriage, if there was a big open gap of “being in heaven” in the meantime?

    Why did Paul say that without the resurrection, we were without hope? Why did he not comfort the Thessalonians and tell them that their dear departed were already in heaven?

    And if the dead are already in bliss in heaven, then what cause is there of the resurrection?

    We are told that in the resurrection, only then shall we put in incorruption, because corruption cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, and then we shall be with the Lord.

    1Th 4:15-18
    (15) For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
    (16) For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
    (17) Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
    (18) Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

    Apparently, they weren’t with the Lord before that. So if Abraham is in heaven, where does God have to stay?

    -Andrew

70. on 31 Jan 2010 at 12:22 am70 Andrew Patrick

    Xavier wrote:

    So YHWH was “dead and buried”?

    Technically, the body was wrapped in linens and was in the process of being prepared with spices, but yes, the body of Christ was buried in a tomb. He was back after three days, though. Thus saith scripture.

    Xavier wrote:
    

    Is Jesus is YHWH, WHO raised him and exalted him into His own heaven??

    You seem to have a very limited view of God. Can God do more than one thing at a time? It’s not my job to figure out how he created the universe from nothing, or ordered light to appear with a word, or prophesies the future, knows the hearts of men, or exists everywhere.

    A computer can raise itself from the dead with a timer, and our fictional time travel heroes deal with multiple instances of themselves all the time. Surely the God who created Time and Space and shifted the shadow of the sun backwards ten degrees (Isaiah 38:8, 1 Kings 20:9-11) isn’t baffled by your disbelief.

    I don’t care if you rationalize that God set the world on autopilot, or if he time-traveled back, if he is in two different locations at once, or if he was just “logged out” of his Sol.Earth.Jerusalem() account. Scripture comes first, theories of “how does he do that” come later.

    Xavier wrote;

    And yes, I am outraged by your argumentations and misapplication of scripture. So, I’ll leave it at that and agree to disagree with you friend.

    I’ll allow you to honorably withdraw.

    Take care,
    -Andrew

71. on 31 Jan 2010 at 12:25 am71 Ray

    Andrew, I don’t know who Don Piper is. I never heard of him. I don’t know what his testimony is.

    Yes there is plenty of scripture that says that the dead are dead and I also believe that. You can go to any grave yard and be assured that you will not see any of them who were burried there
    walking around in their flesh.

    You can put your ear to the ground there and not hear any of them giving praise to God. Certainly the Christians burried there are dead even as they went into the presence of God by the spirit of Christ to be with him in heaven where they are full of life there in the Spirit of God, where in eternity there is no time.

    Jesus said that those that believe in him, though they were dead, yet shall they live, and that whosoever liveth and believeth in him shall never die. (John 11:25,26)

    I’m aware that they have said that time is different in heaven.

    If Christians are separated from their mortal bodies at the time of their death and are taken by the spirit of God to be with Christ in heaven where time is different, what’s wrong with Jesus saying that in the resurrection no one marries or is given in marriage?

    So if Christians are in heaven with the Lord, what is the reason for the resurrection?

    Maybe there is a time for the full redemption of their bodies which hasn’t happened yet. Maybe they are being prepared by the Lord for that happening which is yet future.

    If this is true, just because they have not yet received the resurrection of their bodies, but are being prepared for that event,
    this does not mean that they can not be with the Lord, does it?

    What’s wrong with being with the Lord prior to the resurrecton?

    So if Abraham is in heaven, where does God have to stay? I suppose God can stay wherever he wants. I believe God enjoys heaven as his place of residence as well as Christ.

72. on 31 Jan 2010 at 2:48 am72 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Ray,

    Paul speaks our our bodies like an earthly tabernacle, and how we earnestly seek our house from heaven – but then he defines this heavenly body as mortality when it is swallowed up of life, the same language he uses when he describes the resurrection of the dead in 1 Corinthians 15.

    And he says that we shall not be found naked.

    2Co 5:1-4
    (1) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
    (2) For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
    (3) If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
    (4) For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

    If “clothed” means with either our earthly tabernacle, or our heavenly body, then when Paul says that we shall not be found naked, he is specifically refuting the idea that we have any sort of disembodied existence.

    1) So if we have an earthy tabernacle now,
    2) And we shall not be found naked,
    3) And when we are clothed upon with the heavenly house when mortality is swallowed up of life, when does this happen?

    1Co 15:52-54
    (52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
    (53) For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
    (54) So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    In other words, you shall not be found naked, but you are not “clothed upon” until that last trump (which has not yet happened.)

    1Th 4:16-17
    (16) For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
    (17) Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

    To me, that looks pretty clear that we will not be with the Lord (in heaven or anywhere) until the second coming, when we are raised from the dead, or then if you were still alive, changed and meet him in the air.

    Ray wrote:

    Jesus said that those that believe in him, though they were dead, yet shall they live, and that whosoever liveth and believeth in him shall never die. (John 11:25,26)

    Jesus didn’t say they wouldn’t die, he said that they shall never die. There’s a subtle difference there. The “shall never die” is a promise given, but not yet redeemed.

    Rev 20:6
    (6) Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

    Also, I’m not aware of anyplace where there’s a biblical teaching that we can live without our bodies. It’s certainly not anything that we could rationally deduce:
    1) We only experience vision through our eyes
    2) We only experience hearing through our ears
    3) We only experience touch through our skin
    4) We only experience memory as it is stored in our brain
    5) We experience absolutely nothing when we faint

    Have you ever fainted, from lack of blood, or low blood sugar, or from someone hitting an acupressure point? It’s timeless: one moment you are one place, and the next moment you are “rebooting” and find that your arms and limbs are in a different position.

    So, if you were to faint, would you expect to experience anything? And if you were to faint and then die, why would you expect to suddenly be able to see or hear again?

    Ecc 9:5
    (5) For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

    You wouldn’t have memory either. Ecclesiastes is not trying to instruct us that physical corpses cannot remember things, but our dead souls in heaven.

    You asked, what’s wrong with being with the Lord prior to the resurrection? For starters, it would mean that life and death no longer have their normal meanings, and it entirely cheapens the meaning of the gift of eternal life, if we can “live” without being “alive.”

    There’s also the terrible implications of Eternal Conscious Torment if you believe that the souls of the dead yet live while they are dead: for God says that he is able to destroy both body and soul.

    Third, it’s falling back into that Greek philosophy again: the immortal soul is just as much from Plato as the distant impersonal God (that never suffers) that always uses agents to deal with a tainted creation (but never personally.)

    Col 2:8-9
    (8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
    (9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    Interestingly enough, it seems that Paul was indicating that the philosophy of the day, the tradition of men, was taking people away from Christ. I cannot think of any way of taking more away from Christ than making him simply a “mere obedient man.”

    Joh 11:24-25
    (24) Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
    (25) Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

    And the Greek philosophical model of “immortal souls” also steals away from Christ, because Christ is the resurrection, and the life.

    Note that Martha understood the resurrection. Jesus did not tell her that Lazarus was in heaven, and he did not correct her understanding of the resurrection. What he did do was raise him immediately, something she had not expected.

    Did you notice that there is no “Book of Lazarus” telling us about the Joys of heaven?

    Psa 115:17
    (17) The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.

    Isa 38:18-19
    (18) For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.
    (19) The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day: the father to the children shall make known thy truth.

    If the dead are alive in heaven, they certainly aren’t praising God. We are told that there are angels that praise God day and night (Rev 4:8) yet the dead do not praise God.

    The only conclusion I can come to here is that the dead are really … dead.

    This is really on a different subject than Sean’s blog topic, though I take the blame for it being steered this way: “you do not go to heaven when you die” was an assumed understanding for Peter’s audience (like when Martha told Jesus that Lazarus would live again, in the resurrection.)

    Take care,
    -Andrew

73. on 31 Jan 2010 at 4:02 am73 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Robert,

    Yes Jesus was sinless for the 30 years on HIS OWN .
    He did this by faith in the written Word of God.
    This is what qualified Him to be the Lamb of God not the inability to sin. God foreseen this perfect Human Being and Gave prophecies to His prophets to foretell of him.

    That’s an interesting answer.

    So, if I understand correctly, this would mean that God saw that in the future, at least 490 years in advance (see Daniel 9, the prophecy of weeks) that there would arise one mortal man who would live for 30 years without sinning?

    That answer neutralizes free will, at least by implication. If God can see ahead that far before the man was born, then the man really cannot avoid his fate, ergo, he has no free will, because the future was already written in stone.

    The really interesting part is that this scenario totally neutralizes the “Jesus had a separate will” argument, because it reduces Jesus to having no will of his own: otherwise, God could not have seen ahead that far with perfect accuracy, to stake his reputation and every prophecy of the Bible on it.

    I am curious: do you consider yourself a Calvinist, in any form?

    Thanks for submitting your answer. (I’m interested in any answers that might come along from other people, too.)

    Robert wrote:

    Of course you sidestepped the issue in my last post by not addressing why God is 2 manifestations while He is side by side with himself in heaven
    Why would God need to do such a thing?
    Is God and Jesus now in heaven or is it just God or just Jesus.

    I did answer your question. I demonstrated why “seated at the right hand of God” was a metaphor, rather than a literal seating arrangement.

    Furthermore, I answered with a question, asking Ephesians 2:6 was referring to sitting in literal chairs, or if you would agree that this was also a metaphor.

    Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

    If you answer that question, I think you’ll have the answer to your question about “seated at the right hand of God.” Check Post 63 again. None of those verses has a picture of two separate people.

    It seems to me that you’re protesting the meaning, but not considering that that’s the best metaphor that could be used to say that Jesus had inherited the full power of God.

    Col 2:9-10
    (9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
    (10) And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

    I suppose that’s another way of saying it, but maybe someone out there will get a weird idea that Jesus is just a “head.” Some people just refuse to understand basic metaphors!

    Col 3:1
    (1) If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

    Maybe you can answer this question: do you really think that Jesus is sitting on top of the right hand of God?

    Or is this really just a seating arrangement in a literal throne room? This “right hand” argument is old already: your theory of a literal interpretation yields some very silly results. It’s a metaphor for wielding the power of God.

    Exo 15:6
    (6) Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.

    Job 40:12-14
    (12) Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place.
    (13) Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret.
    (14) Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.

    Psa 118:16
    (16) The right hand of the LORD is exalted: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly.

    Notice, that “right hand” is used in a metaphorical sense for “power” or “acting force.” It doesn’t necessarily mean a literal right hand, or even at the right side: it represents what we typically do with our right hand (most of us are right-handed.)

    Take care,
    -Andrew

74. on 31 Jan 2010 at 11:29 am74 Doubting Thomas

    Andrew Patrick
    In your message to Robert you said, “That answer neutralizes free will, at least by implication. If God can see ahead that far before the man was born, then the man can not really avoid his fate, ergo, he has no free will, because the future was already written in stone.”

    You just finished dismissing Xavier position by saying that he’s limiting God and what God can do, then you turn around and dismiss Roberts position by saying that there are certain things God can’t do- Like see the future and know what will happen in 490 years.

    You can’t have your cake and eat it too….

    There is a word for people that talk out of both sides of their mouth and say one thing to one person and the opposite to another. The word is hypocrite.

    Psalms is very clear that God hates hypocrites……

75. on 31 Jan 2010 at 11:49 am75 Doubting Thomas

    Andrew Patrick
    I see no point in answering the questions of someone who is not sincere in seeking knowledge. Like I said in an earlier message you have already made up your mind long before you ever even started talking to me. There is nothing I could say or do to change your mind.

    I actually feel sorry for people that have closed their minds to receiving any revelations from their studies of the bible. You obviously decided what the bible said long before you even began to study it. You spend all your time and effort trying to twist quotations around to fit your preconceptions.

    You claim to dismiss one persons argument because he is putting limits on God and turn around and dismiss another persons argument because he doesn’t put limits (which you invent) on God.

    I have no intention of wasting my time talking in circles.

    I wish you good luck in your future and I pray that God will one day open your mind so you can study the scripture without being limited by all your preconceptions…

76. on 31 Jan 2010 at 11:58 am76 Ray

    Andrew, when Paul speaks of being clothed upon after one has been absent from the body, it’s because of the spirit of God.

    There is no doubt a clothing in Christ Jesus with which Christians who have passed on from this life, are clothed with as they are in the presence of the Lord.

    In heaven they are in glory and the glory of the Lord is seen by them and also enters into them. His glory also comes out of them.
    They are a part of him. They are covered by Christ. All of this is by the spirit of God. They haviing received the spirit of Christ are not found to be naked.

    The scripture says that it is appointed unto men to die once. For those Christians who have died in Christ, and have been taken by the Spirit to be with Christ in heaven, have they not put on imortality?

    And when the Lord comes for those who are yet alive on this earth, will he not come with ten thousand of his saints? How would this be if those saints were yet dead in the grave?

    And when he comes, then isn’t the resurrection of the dead something that happens for those who have died in Christ, before
    those which are alive and have remained on this earth, ’till they also are changed and taken up together to be with the Lord?
    (I Thess 4:13-18)

    That’s what it’s looking like to me.

    The dead know nothing at all, for they that are in the flesh can not inherit the kingdom of God. The life is in the Spirit, not the flesh. As long as a man is in the flesh, he is absent from the Lord. That’s why when his flesh dies, there is no knowledge of God in the flesh, hence, they know nothing at all. You could try talking to them, but they will not answer back. They don’t even know anyone is talking to them as they are dead.

    Does it sound like I’m speaking of two different men? I am. One is old and the other is new. One is dead, having no life, and the other
    is in Christ, even a part of him.

    I wonder why it is that many believed because of Lazarus. Is it simply because he was raised from the dead by Jesus, or did he
    have a testimony of things concerning heaven? If he did, he wasn’t
    the only one who died and came back to tell of such things, for I also have heard of one who died and was sent back by the Lord Jesus, and we can order his book.

    If Lazarus had experienced heaven, and wrote a book about his experience, why would we not have it today? Maybe some people would have been against it and would have destroyed it. Maybe they would have called it philosophy and vain deceit because it didn’t fit their belief system.

    How do those who do not believe that Christians commune with the Lord in heaven as soon as they are absent from their bodies,
    interpret what Paul wrote about this, in II Cor 5:5-9?

    Do they believe Paul is saying that it’s vain confidence that we think
    that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord?
    Do they believe Paul is saying that it’s a false hope that he keeps in mind to make him feel better in this life, even though it is not so?
    Do they believe it’s a fable that we should keep in mind to entertain ourselves?

77. on 31 Jan 2010 at 12:02 pm77 Doubting Thomas

    Mark C.
    I can’t find our conversation we were having. I think it was under debating the trinity but I went through the comments section and can’t find the debating the trinity link to click on.

    Sorry to keep bothering you but I am new to this blogging thing…

78. on 31 Jan 2010 at 12:19 pm78 robert

    Andrew
    Just how does that take the freewill away from Jesus when he didnt know God knew this.
    this perfection was his own will.

    .I understand God could be in multiple places at once but having 2 of him in heaven at same time would be needless and stupid.

79. on 31 Jan 2010 at 12:55 pm79 robert

    Revelation 21
    3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

    why does this state ” he will dwell with them” when by yours and trinity belief he was with them during the thousand years

    Revelation 20
    4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

    If Jesus was God than Why doesnt He Take care of this

    9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

    So using your belief God came and took the book out of the right hand of himself. did he use His left hand to do this?

    Revelation 5
    7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

    so you see your belief is even more silly than the trinity one.

80. on 01 Feb 2010 at 4:41 am80 Jaco

    Andrew Patrick,

    Sorry for not replying sooner. Being back to school is a time consumer with no equals!

    Here is my reply:

    1. The boat did not sink, and Jesus was obviously quite relaxed (and not worried) about the whole affair. If Jesus had been afraid, then you might have evidence that he was not God. Rather, “sleeping” demonstrates the opposite effect.

    Your argument goes like this: If Jesus were God, he would not be afraid and worried about the storm. Jesus was not afraid and didn’t worry about the storm. Thus, Jesus is God. Fallacious reasoning: affirming the consequent

    2. God is quite capable of paying attention in heaven while sleeping on a boat at the same time. But if all the storms had been prevented, how would Jesus have demonstrated his mastery over the elements?

    Few fallacies here: You’re equivocating between what you perceive God to be capable of doing, and what he actually did and revealed to be able to do in the Bible. If everything boils down to our concepts of God’s capability, Andrew, we wouldn’t have this discussion. You could be a Muslim and I a Buddhist…after all, do you really think God is incapable of being the prophet Mohammed and the enlightened Buddha, presenting as truth conflicting theologies while at the same time speaking the same truth? See how preposterous it gets?

    1)Your counter-argument basically boils down to a claim that God would be *unable* to sleep on the boat, and to bring on the storms from heaven, at the same time. Please, this is a very silly argument – actually, it’s just a form of sophistry.

    No, there’s no need to have my argument boil down to anything. Allow me to correct your strawman-fallacy: God stays true to what he reveals about himself in Scripture, else, he’s a liar (Tit. 1:2). From what God revealed in Scripture, he doesn’t sleep nor slumber (with the obvious anthropomorphic effects implied). Jesus did sleep, and he did slumber on the boat. Thus, Jesus cannot be God. Is it a matter of ability? I can say. Scripture doesn’t say and I won’t go beyond what Scripture teaches me.

    If you actually think this is a valid argument, note that the single Psalm you’re quoting (and avoiding a few others, like Psalm 44:23 and Psalm 78:65) simply says that “he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.”
    Do you believe that God can keep Israel … and sleep on a boat… and listen to your prayers… all at the same time? That’s the crux of this argument. If your answer is “yes, but it’s not in his revealed nature” then that’s your attempt at human reasoning coming into play. This whole episode is about revealing his nature.

    What you believe God is capable and incapable of doing is one thing. I prefer to go with what He revealed to be capable (or willing) of doing and what not.

    His nature WAS revealed on that boat, and he calmed the storm with a word. The Jews would have been familiar with Psalm 89:8-9, 93:4, 107:28-29, etc… and the Jewish disciples recognized that the waves obeyed *him* (Jesus) and if they didn’t recognize their own Hebrew scriptures then, they most certainly recognized them later.

    Nature is not at issue here. Identity is. Jesus’ behaviour identifies him to be distinct and different from the God, Yahweh, he represented. You’re committing a fallacy again: If Jesus were God, the waves would obey him. The waves obeyed him, thus, Jesus is God. Again, affirming the consequent. The waves’ obedience could be due to the power he received from God. In fact, instead of saying he was God, the Bible explicitly states that he received power from God, once again highlighting their inequality and distinctness (Joh. 5:36).

    However, I think I see where your logic got snagged… you said, “had Jesus been identical to the vigilant God, Yahweh, he would not have fallen asleep.”
    This is the “hamster in a cage” scenario. If you are the hamster. the world is the cage. You see the hand of God in the cage, and reason that it can’t possibly be God, because God lives outside the cage. You reason that God has two eyes, but the hand has no eyes, therefore the hand cannot be God! That’s the end result of Hamster philosophy. Hamsters don’t think big.

    No, sorry, false analogy. I can only go as far as the things God reveals to me from beyond the confines of the cage. I have never been outside the cage (nor have you). I can certainly guess what could go on the outside, but, unless it corresponds with what God reveals to be the case, it cannot be regarded as truth. BTW, an illustration doesn’t prove truth. Truth still has to be established and then explained by illustration, not the other way around.

    Here’s a question for you: if I have a camera watching you at all times – and I install a second camera that watches you during daylight hours, have I stopped watching you when that second camera goes into its sleep cycle? No. I haven’t.

    I cannot really answer this. Tell me first, who is represented by the first camera, who is represented by the second camera, and who is represented by the one watching? If you can clarify that for me, I can answer the question on your (hopefully explanatory) illustration.

    2) Now it seems that you have used the “no man can see God” argument. But for that, you not only have to take the original statement out of context, but you also have to “explain away” a superior amount of counter-texts that demonstrate that yes, people have seen God in physical form, on this earth.
    “No man can see God [in his full glory] and live.” See Genesis 33. Moses not only saw God, he talked with him face to face, and he was even allowed to see God in a muted version of His glorified manner.
    1) Moses spoke with God in a physical form, who had a face, and they talked with words
    2) Moses asked to see God in his glory (Exodus 33:18)
    3) God uses the term “face” to refer to “his glory” (verse 20)
    4) God still allows Moses to behold him in a portion of his glory, but withholds his full measure of glory

    No, the account in Ex. 33 speaks of Moses asking Yahweh to see his glory (v. 18). Not only would God show Moses His glory (v. 22), but continually show him His goodness (v. 19). What God does make clear, is that no one can or may see God’s face or his Person (v. 20, 23). Jesus reiterates this (Joh. 5:37), as well as other inspired writers (1 Tim. 1:17, 6:16, 1 Joh. 4:12). In fact, Stephen says that God spoke to Moses by means of an angel (Ac. 7:38). In all the other instances you site, it was Yahweh’s angel(s) who acted as messengers, speaking to people in God’s stead. The listeners’ astonishment at the event undoubtedly filled them with awe, hence their exaggerated and amazing claims that they saw God’s face.

    And I’m not even bothering going over Adam, Jacob, Joshua, Abraham, etc. You have a lot of plain scripture to argue against if you want to try to use that angle. Besides, you’re going to shoot yourself in the foot, for Jesus himself said, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”

    Andrew, I know how to use a gun…I’m South African…:-). No scripture to argue against. Scripture nicely explains itself. But, let’s focus on the issue at hand, and leave the empty threats out of it. I’d hoped that seeing Jesus would mean seeing the Father. I’m serious. The Bible says that Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15, 2 Cor. 4:4), that he is the exact representation or copy of His Person (Heb. 1:3). In no other way is it possible to know His Father to such an extent than how he resembles God. If it weren’t the case, Andrew, my faith, and the faith the Bible encourages us to have, would be in vain!

    Job said, “Yet in my flesh shall I see God” (Job 19:25-26)

    At no point in all Job’s experiences with God did God show himself to Job. Yahweh did, however display his power and greatness in the natural phenomena he made Job to see. In Job’s case seeing God was exactly one way in which we can see God (Rom. 1:20). Job’s experience and interaction with God undoubtedly resulted in his discerning or “seeing” the true God.

    That is not a strong argument, and attempting to use it will cost credibility. I’m certain you have more legitimate concerns than constructing word maneuvers (that are doomed to backfire anyway.)

    Andrew, initially you came onto this blog with a very admirable and humble demeanor. Let’s keep it that way, focus on the issues and arguments at hand, and not resort to appealing to coercion or threats.

    1) You have entered an argument that all the scriptures that say that men saw God or spoke with God in the bible MUST be mistakes. For this you have composed a rule that if an account refers to the same being as a man, an angel of the LORD, and God, that it must be scaled down to the lowest common denominator.

    No, you’re misrepresenting my position again (strawman). The accounts, either in the immediate context or somewhere else, indicates that Yahweh used representatives, whether they were humans or angels appearing in human form, and that the Hebrew reality of agency (shaliach) allowed the agent or ambassador to be addressed as the Represented One Himself.

    That’s flawed reasoning, and un-scriptural. Answer me this: was Gabriel a human being, or an angelic servant of God? Why does scripture refer to him as “the man Gabriel” when he flies in the book of Daniel? your equation says that he must be “downgraded” to a human being.
    Dan 9:21
    (21) Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
    Luk 1:19
    (19) And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings
    Check the scriptures, and confirm this. “Man” simply means “in the form of a man” regardless of whether it is man, God, or angel. “Angel” simply means messenger, although it usually means “supernatural being.” But when it says God, it can only mean God. Anything else has to argue that the scripture doesn’t mean what it says.

    No, this reasoning amounts to reductio ad absurdum, and is not the reasoning I employ anywhere in the cases you refer to. Man only means “in the form of man” or the appearance of man where Scripture and context allows for it. In the case of Gabriel the Bible does. See Dan. 8:16. But to use this single instance as a general rule to be applied in all other instances where God is represented is a fallacious leap par excellence. You see, the Bible nowhere teaches that God took the “form” of man or of an angel. These are always presented as representative individuals. What the Bible does say, however is that Jesus was in the “form of God” which does show that he was different from God (Phil. 2:6). I repeat what I said in my previous mail: It is one thing to say, men or angels were called God. It is something quite different to say that God was called “a man” or “an angel.”

    4) The “separate wills” argument does sound reasonable, but it is flawed. Where the text is neutral, you are modifying it slightly that colors it according to your thinking: you are taking this statement out of context.
    When Jesus says, “I can of my own self do nothing” and then explains that his judgment is just “because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me” – he is not giving a dissertation on Unitarianism. Look at the next verse:
    “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.”
    Does that really mean that Jesus was a liar? Besides, this, when he said “I can of my own self do nothing” he just said that judgment belongs to him, and that he has life just as the Father has life.
    Any example of Jesus doing *anything* against the will of God would serve as concrete evidence of “separate wills.*

    No, I don’t think so. The context strengthens the position of distinctness between Jesus and God. Other than God, Jesus cannot do anything. Other than the accusations of opposers, Jesus does, not his own will, but that of God, his Father. Other than bearing witness of himself, someone ELSE, different and distinct from Jesus does, making him the Chief Agent of life. (Heb. 12:2). Your final sentence is untrue. Doing anything against the will of God would disqualify Him as God’s Chief messenger. You’re assuming that only disobeying God would prove separate wills. Not true. Jesus proved that, while having separate wills, he chose to align his will with his Father’s (Joh. 4:34, 6:48).

    Regardless, the Jews understood what Jesus was saying: John 5:18, “[he] said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” Jesus did not deny this.

    Nor did he deny the accusation that he broke the Sabbath…

    This argument hinges a lot upon your definition of the word “will” and “wills” and whether you allow for a normal person to have a conflict of will: for example, no sane person wants to endure pain, but we will choose it to accomplish an ends (like childbirth).

    False analogy: You’re assuming a single person, and you’re assuming an inevitable outcome. Childbirth is not a will one has to comply to. The Scriptures I cite indicates someone sent to do the will of the sender, and not his own. Inevitable natural events have nothing to do with it.

    The reason this argument is not convincing to me, is because those statements are still perfectly compatible if Jesus were demonstrating that he was not exercising a *separate* will. So this point cannot be proven, but I will grant that it is a far better argument than the previous ones.
    5) In your next argument, you are objecting that the names of “Father” and “Son of God” must correlate as strictly as possible to the biological nuclear family model. However, to keep this point brief, you (and Trinitarians alike) have a contradiction from the famous Isaiah 9:6.
    There is no doubt that this refers to Jesus, the Messiah, but one would have to resort to gymnastics such as “God does not mean God” and that “everlasting Father” is not used as a name or title.

    No, once again, don’t put words or arguments in my mouth. Elohim means Elohim. You see, you have an exegetical problem here. If you insist that Elohim always refers to the One God, Yahweh, then you should start considering Moses as one of the modes of the Elohim you worship (Ex. 7:1). Also include an indefinite amount of judges who were also called Elohim (Ps. 82). Something else to consider: Many times names were theophoric, describing God, instead of the bearer of the name. Joshua means “Yehowah is Salvation,” Eliezer, “My God is help,” Michael, “Who is like God.” None of these persons were actually God. So, if the name in Isaiah 9:6 is theophoric, it beautifully describes the Almighty God. Some Jewish sources also suggests the implication of “is” or “of” in the name, taking it to be “Wonderful Counselor is Mighty God,…” or “Wonderful Counselor of Mighty God,…”etc. Even if the name given here does describe Jesus, it does not by necessity mean that Jesus is Almighty God. As King-designate, the one second-in charge, Jesus does qualify to be our Mighty God or powerful ruler. Since he is the second Adam, we are by purchase adopted sons, hence him rightfully being our Father for ever by virtue of his saving work. I still have an earthly father by virtue of my birth, and Yahweh is still my Almighty Father by virtue of his Creatorship.

    Rev 21:6-7
    (6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
    (7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
    Now, that does not specifically use “the Father” as a name, but those are the words of Christ in red, saying that he is the beginning and the end [title of the LORD God] and that he will be our God. Now, if Jesus is not the LORD God, that’s not only deceptive and a lie, that’s also blasphemy.
    You wrote: “This Scripture does indicate that Jesus isn’t identical to God.”
    I can show you quite a few equivalences, just in the identification of “beginning and end” alone. The phrase is used only SEVEN times (an interesting number) – three times in Isaiah, and only for identifying the only LORD God. And it is used four times in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, for the risen Christ, who we called Jesus.

    No, you’re creating a false dilemma here. There is another option, see, and that is that Jesus could be the Alpha and Omega in another sense. You’re assuming that similarity in designation indicates ontological identity. This creates a problem. Would you say that Nebuchadnezzar is Yahweh or Jesus Christ? He is called King of kings (Dan. 2:37). Or would you say that the saviour of Judges 3:15 (Ehud) or the many saviours according to Nehemiah 9:27 were actually Yahweh (Isa. 43:11) or Jesus (Ac. 5:31)? I hope not. Yahweh is the Saviour through people as agents, the Chief Agent being Christ Jesus the Messiah (Jud. 25).
    Likewise, as the perfect representative of Yahweh, the Word embodied as Jesus (Joh. 1:14), the one first to be resurrected (Col. 1:18), and the last resurrected by God (1 Cor. 15:45), the beginning of God’s promises (Gen. 3:15) and the end or finale of all of God’s promises (2 Cor. 1:19, 20), Jesus can be called the Alpha and Omega of God’s New Creation.

    6) The “no one is good, save one, that is, God” argument does absolutely nothing to promote Unitarianism without first invoking circular logic. I do not see much point in going around on this more.
    If you have to add your version of *inflection* to the text, and then add meaning based upon your added *inflection* this is an obviously biased method of interpretation.

    No, language, Andrew, language. The whole of Jesus’ reply and the immediate context point this out.

    Now, it would be different if you just used an imagined interpretation as a springboard to launch a bible study. For example, there are differing opinions concerning the inflection when Jesus says, “upon this rock I will build my church” – but that CAN be proven with scripture study, and the translation can be verified by a simple check of the Greek text.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/15484041/Sham-Rocks
    In the Old Testament Hebrew the Rock was called Jehovah, and in the New Testament Greek the Rock uses the name Jesus. You figure out the obvious indication…
    To summarize the “Jesus was not good” argument:
    a) Jesus called himself Good “I am the Good shepherd”

    You’re equivocating here. Being “good” in the way Jesus used it in Mark 10:18 (agathos) is not the same as how he uses it in Joh. 10:13 (kalos). It’s like saying, chocolate tastes good, thus, it is good to eat chocolate… Fallacy of equivocation.

    b) the only statement says nothing against the divinity of Christ

    You’re reasoning from the negative here. You needn’t explicitly deny divinity in order to imply that denial. His reply implies both identity with the Father, God, and equality with Him.

    c) the only question was never directly answered

    Red Herring. It doesn’t change the meaning of Jesus’ answer.

    d) if you think Christ made an effort to steer the conversation in a way that would indirectly answer the question, the command of “sell all that you have and follow me” was the true law of “Love God” and “thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

    Another attempt to tell me what I’m trying to say. Strawman fallacy.

    e) attempting to use that as a conclusive argument for Unitarianism again threatens ones credibility.

    Strawman fallacy

    f) If you think Jesus meant “I am not God” then why didn’t he say “I am not God?”

    Reasoning from the negative. You’re assuming explicit denial of identity is the only way of doing it.

    You wrapped up your argument with a vague reference to a Greek phrase “ho theos.” If you think this is indeed a valid argument, and better than the “God has this power, Jesus did not exercise this power, therefore Jesus is not God” formulas, then perhaps you could explain why you believe this particular phrase is so significant.

    No, another strawman. I never reduced the issues to such absurd simplicities. Here is what I said, and I stand by it.
    I will thus use this definition of God, referring to him as a person, and not an essence. Ho theos is never used as an essence, unlike the Nicean and subsequent formulas. With this in mind, John. 1:1c does not identify the word as Ho Theos. It explains an attribute of the Word, namely it being divine.

    But I don’t want to put words in your mouth in the meantime.

    Well you did all the time…

    You have presented a theological view of God that is remarkably compatible with the Greek philosophy of the early centuries, of Plato, and Aristotle, that also brought us the “immortal soul” of Athenagoros, and Tertullian, and Augustine.
    For example, where the Hebrew God was personal and passionate, the God that you present remains in distant in the heaven at all times, conducting his work through agents of one sort or another, and never becoming personally involved. Like Plato’s theory of forms, he is perfect, yet invisible. He does not suffer, nor feel pain, and is untouchable.
    Differing from Greek thought, the Hebrew people expressed God not as a sum of powers, but by his nature. God is the Rock. God is my high tower. God is my buckler, my shield, my strength. God is Just, the Judge, he who sits upon the throne, the LORD is my Shepherd.
    The Hebrews expressed the nature of God through names, descriptives, and metaphor, not with an sophistry equations like “God is in heaven. Jesus was on earth. Therefore Jesus is not God.”
    Just like the doctrine of Universalism was a philosophical reaction to the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment, holding the “immortal soul” as its highest tenet, it seems as if Universalism is a reaction to the mystical “Trinity” – yet still maintaining the untouchable uninvolved Father of Greek philosophy, marking “patripassionism” as its high heresy.

    I’m not going to elaborate on what you wrote here. This is a strawman I’m not even going to waste my time on. The very point of departure in the arguments you’re proposing is to understand God in terms of his “essence” or “nature.” That is what makes YOUR position wholly Hellenistic and non-Hebraic. Nowhere does God ever reveal Himself it terms of his “essence.” Metaphor and anthropomorphisms explain God in terms of His Person, His relationship with the rest of creation and his activity. Never in terms of His “nature.” This is a mystico-philosophical dimension imported from extra-biblical sources which you are trying to argue for using the Bible. Since your initial premise is fallacious and irrelevant, your subsequent premises and conclusions will be fallacious. You see, by the same token you have a problem: is God so weak in your eyes that he cannot involve himself personally from a distance by means of agents and holy spirit representing him on earth? It goes both ways, see? And eventually your argument resorts to the very sophistry you’re arguing against, since biblical evidence presents God exactly as the One represented by agents without detracting from His glory in any way.

    From the beginning, the God of Israel WALKED in the Garden with Adam. He ATE food with Abraham. He RECEIVED TITHES from Abraham as Melchizedek. He WRESTLED with Jacob. He walked FACE TO FACE with Moses. He CARRIED A SWORD when he talked with Joshua. This is the nature of the Hebrew God. That’s what the scriptures plainly say.

    Again, anthropomorphism and cases where God’s representatives ate food with Abraham. Melchizedek is never said to be God. Unless you understand the Hebrew law of agency, you will always resort to arguments of reductio ad absurdum as you do above.

    And I’m expected to believe that it would be against his nature to CARRY A CROSS for us? That he would delegate this to a created being?

    Fallacy of complex question.

    1Ti 3:16
    (16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

    Spurious text. HE was manifest in the flesh (referring to Jesus, not God)

    Joh 1:14
    (14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    No problem with the text. Jesus had the glory and favor of an only begotten Son, he was not God.

    It takes a lot of word wrangling to neutralize those verses, and there’s many more like them.

    No, it takes a lot of word wrangling to harmonize these verses with a doctrine never taught in Scripture.

    You said that Revelation always reveals Jesus and God as two different and distinct entities. Have you read Revelation? That single book is absolutely definitive on this question. “Alpha and Omega” is the obvious translation of “the Aleph and Tau.” The “first and the last” that Jesus uses so liberally was ALWAYS used to identify the only LORD God. The “beginning and the end” also has meaning.

    I dealt with this issue above. Rev. 1:1 irrefutable presents Jesus as separate, distinct and unequal to God as the angel he used was as separate, distinct and unequal to him.

    And when Jesus is identified as being seen by they which pierced him (Rev 1:7) did you ever notice that the LORD identified himself as “he who they pierced” in the Old Testament prophets?
    Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced…

    No, according to many textual variants this latter section should read: “…and they shall look upon the One whom they have pierced.” In fact, this is exactly the variant Jesus used in John 19:37!

    I’m not just talking about one or two scattered instances of a shade of metaphor. The Revelation of Jesus Christ REVEALS Jesus Christ, in person, in glory, and as God.

    No, you’re trivializing the evidence here. Revelation overwhelmingly shows Jesus, the Lamb, distinct from God, who is the Father, the means of salvation and reconciliation of man with God. God is also Jesus’ God (Rev. 2:7, 3:2, 12)

    Now, if Jesus were not God, why would he allow people to worship him, and why would he use the names of God, and why would he say that he would be our God? How come you will NEVER see Jesus saying ANYTHING like this?
    Rev 19:10
    (10) And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
    Servants of God do not allow men to worship them, if they have any say in the matter. They do not allow themselves to be called God. Only God allows himself to be called God.
    Joh 20:28-29
    And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
    Jesus did not correct Thomas. He PRAISED him for believing. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a personal God, a God up close, and not a God afar off. He is not ruled by the whims of Greek philosophers who separate *ethos* from *pathos.* He is the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

    Jesus would be worshipped for similar reasons why the saints will be worshipped (Rev. 3:9). As the messenger of the Lord, Jesus could rightly also have God’s name upon him as God’s Agent (Ex. 23:20, 21). He would be our God similar to Moses being Aaron’s God (Ex. 7:1) As God’s perfect agent, Jesus deserves this title more than anyone ever did or would! (Joh. 5) Jesus didn’t correct Thomas, since he knew what Thomas meant, and that was in perfect harmony with the Hebrew monotheistic usage.
    I stand with what I posted previously, and maintain that Scripture is clear as to Yahweh’s (Jehovah’s) singular unity, His active involvement in people’s affairs through faithful agents, the foremost of which was Our Lord, Jesus Christ! (Heb. 1:1-4)

    Jaco

81. on 01 Feb 2010 at 6:35 am81 Xavier

    Jaco,

    Great response. Raises alot of other examples.

    Simon [the Mage] is explicitly called “by people, both high and low…the Great Power of God” [Acts 8.9f.]; Herod was also recognized by people as having “the voice of God” [Acts 12.21-22]; even more prominently the Apostles were called “gods” [Acts 14.11; 28.6].

    If all these men are clearly given divine [Deity] status, why don’t we?

    Its interesting that when it comes to Jesus no one, except his opponents the Pharisees, even assumed such a thing! Even though their supposed accusation to Deity in John 10.33 lacks the definite article [i.e. "you claim to be God--ho theos]. Even though scribes added the definite article to the word theos, “god,” in manuscript p66. Theos without the article means “god” and is translated as such in verses like John 10:34-35; Acts 12:22; 28:6.

    Yet, most modern [trinitarian] translators ignore the fact that the Greek text reads “god” and not “God,” and thus “God” is what appears in almost every modern version.

    Jesus said to the paralyzed man, “Be encouraged, my child! Your sins are forgiven.”

    But some of the teachers of religious law said to themselves, “That’s blasphemy! Does he think he’s God?”

    Jesus saw>/i> [understood] what they were thinking, so he asked them, “Why do you have such evil thoughts in your hearts? Is it easier to say ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or ‘Stand up and walk’? So I will prove to you that the Son of Man [non-Divine title] has the authority on earth to forgive sins.” Then Jesus turned to the paralyzed man and said, “Stand up, pick up your mat, and go home!”

    And the man jumped up and went home! Fear swept through the crowd as they saw this happen. And they praised God for for sending a man with such great authority and giving such authority to human beings. Mat 9.2-8

    Note the following sequence where we the people doing exactly what Jesus taught regarding the light that shines before others, when “they see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.” [Mat 5.16]

    The people were amazed when they saw the mute speaking, the crippled made well, the lame walking and the blind seeing. And they praised the God of Israel. Mat 15.31

    This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!” Mar 2.12

    The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told. Lu 2.20

    Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God. Everyone was amazed and gave praise to God. They were filled with awe and said, “We have seen remarkable things today.” Lu 5.25-26

    This one is particularly interesting, giving an excellent example of Shaliach:

    They were all filled with awe and praised God. “A great prophet [non-Deity office] has appeared among us,” they said. “God has come to help his people.” Lu 7.16

    And they were all amazed at the greatness of God.Lu 9.43

    Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God. Lu 13.13

    One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice. Lu 17.15

    Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they also praised God. Lu 18.43

    When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen. Lu 19.37

    The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.” Lu 23.47

    Just a note on “Subordinationism” by Bart Ehrman in his The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, p 272, f.37:

    Subordinationism came to be seen as heresy only in the later christological development of the fourth century. During the first three centuries, most of the proto-orthodox [later Catholics], while acknowledging that Christ was fully divine, nonetheless affirmed that within the “economy” he was subordinate to God the Father, whose will he did. See von Harnack, History of Dogma, III. 70, who argues that the christological theses of Tertullian and his theological allies were completely dependant on their opposition to the modalists. This opposition reveals itself, above all, in their strict subordination of the Son to the Father, for by positing such a relationship within the Godhead could they repel the charge, made by their opponents, of teaching that there were two Gods.

82. on 01 Feb 2010 at 8:19 am82 Jaco

    Sorry, correction. One paragraph reads:

    Jesus proved that, while having separate wills, he chose to align his will with his Father’s (Joh. 4:34, 6:48).

    It has to be Joh. 6:38, not 48

83. on 01 Feb 2010 at 10:24 am83 Xavier

    Further note: the biblical judges are called “gods” ['elohim] in the OT. The classic case appears in Ps 82.

    [God] admonishes the gods in four successive imperatives to exercise their judicial function faithfully…82.5 states emphatically that the gods have no insight, and that in consequence they cannot be judges [elohym]…

    …any remaining doubt as to who is under discussion here is removed by v.7, where the gods are designated as mortal. In contrast to this is v.8, which harks back to v.1 and forms the climax of the whole psalm: because the ‘elohim are powerless and incompetent to act as judges, the only true ‘elohim (God) is now performing this function. In contrast to the gods [judges] who have fallen, God is called upon to rise as judge. God is both ruler and judge. He alone is mighty. [Eerdmans commentary on the Bible, J.D.G. Dunn, J.W. Rogerson, Psalm 82]

    This biblical precedent goes back to the book of Exodus where the only “the only true ‘elohim” orders the Jews to obey the judges he has established as divine beings in liue of their divinely given authority. So much so, that they serve as the only representative for “the only true ‘elohim” and appear to the people as God Himself would.

    …his master must take him before the judges ['elohim]…

    But if the thief is not found, the owner of the house must appear before the judges ['elohim]…both parties are to bring their cases before the judges ['elohim]. The one whom the judges ['elohim] declare guilty must pay back double to the other.

    Do not blaspheme the judges ['elohim] or curse the ruler of your people. Ex 21.6; 22.8-9, 28

    Note also that the Davidic King [and judge/ruler] is called “god” ['elohim] by the only true God.

    Your throne, O god, will last forever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. Ps 45.6

    Possibly the king’s throne is called God’s throne because he is God’s appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as “god”.

    The Davidic king (the “LORD’s anointed,” 2Sa 19:21), because of his special relationship with God, was called at his enthronement the “son” of God (see 2:7; 2Sa 7:14; 1Ch 28:6; cf. 89:27).

    In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his “splendor and majesty” (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called “god” as a title of honor (cf. Isa 9:6). John H. Stek, NIV Study Bible, p 831, ed. Kenneth L. Barker, Zondervan, 1985.

    The point being that these “gods” are not divine by nature but by the grace and gift of authority given to them by someone else, who is likewise referred to as ‘elohim. Therefore, as Paul later teaches:

    There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us [Christians] there is but one God, the Father [and] one Lord, Jesus Christ…But not everyone possesses this knowledge. 1Cor 8.4-7

    Lastly, this one ‘elohim is given the exclusive name of YHWH [Ex 3.14], and attributed the unique NT reference of “the one being and the one who had been and the one coming” (Rev 1:4, 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:5).

84. on 01 Feb 2010 at 9:32 pm84 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Xavier,

    You already exited this conversation: have you forgotten?

    On Post 66 on this thread, you withdrew.

    There were outstanding questions that you were refusing to answer or even acknowledge, and you didn’t want to answer them.

    Xavier wrote:

    [one day ago, post 66] I’ll leave it at that and agree to disagree with you friend.

    You reaffirmed that you were no longer in the discussion on Post 50 of Sean’s “One God, Why does it matter” thread.

    Xavier wrote:
    [one day ago, "One God, why does it matter", post 50 ]

    Dear Andrew,

    We’re done friend. This is clearly a waste of both of our time. I’m sure you would agree.

    adios.

    On Post 70 of this thread, I acknowledged that you were exiting, and said I would allow you to honorably withdraw.

    I’ll allow you to honorably withdraw

    Since then, less than 24 hours later after you “exited” saying you were done with discussion (and also neglecting your questions) you have since followed up with:

    1) Indirect sniping (post 59, Sean’s “One God, why does it matter”)
    2) Entering more arguments (post 81, this thread)
    3) Entering even more arguments (post 83, this thread)

    When I said that I would allow you to honorably withdraw, I meant that I was not going to pursue you any further, and that I would not hold it against you if you did not answer the live questions or arguments on your side of the table.

    But I also was assuming that you were honorable. Sniping is not honorable: if you have an argument to present, put it forth to me so it can be addressed, don’t talk beside me for the sake of mutual back-patting where you are safe from reprisal.

    So, please tell me, what am I supposed to do with this? I’m left to deduce that you don’t mean what you say, but do I:

    1) Answer arguments and questions you launch from behind your safe wall of “not talking to me” even though this seems to be a one-sided arrangement?

    2) Just plain ignore you as being an irresponsible (or dishonest) opponent? I’d answer points and questions from the responsible posters, instead.

    If you want to re-enter, you should go back and review any outstanding arguments or questions I’ve put to you, and it would be polite to announce that you’re re-entering. As it is, you want to debate, but you don’t want to have to answer an opponent. You can’t have it both ways.

    -Andrew

85. on 01 Feb 2010 at 10:31 pm85 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Doubting Thomas,

    Re: charge of hypocrisy [post 74]

    Before you level wild charges of hypocrisy, you might want to take careful note that I said nothing concerning the power of God to override the free will of a mortal, and I didn’t question a power of “looking ahead in time” – I simply pointed out that Robert’s answer removed the “power” or “free will” of said mortal to sin.

    I simply pointed out that Robert’s answer eliminated the free will of Jesus to choose good or evil, right or wrong.

    It seems to me that you are proceeding on the following reasoning:
    1) You accepted Robert’s answer, that God looked ahead in time to find a “perfect and sinless” mortal
    2) God then wrote his prophecies that depended on a sinless Lamb

    Then, when I pointed out that this removed Christ’s power of free will, since the future had already been (inerrantly) seen, and divine intervention to “prevent sinning” still overrides “free will”

    3) Because you have already decided that “free will” is a given that cannot be challenged, you had a contradiction… so you got mad and called me a hypocrite.

    And ironically, you launched the Calvinistic-style attack that anyone who believed that mortals have free will was denying the power of God, thus limiting him of his divine omnipotence.

    Since you don’t believe Jesus was God, how is it I “denying the power of God” if the scenario that Robert proposed that neutralized the power/ability of Jesus to choose?

    Please think a little more carefully before launching attacks or accusations against one’s character.

    But, if you want to talk about hypocrisy:

    Doubting Thomas wrote;

    I see no point in answering the questions of someone who is not sincere in seeking knowledge. Like I said in an earlier message you have already made up your mind long before you ever even started talking to me. There is nothing I could say or do to change your mind.

    I actually feel sorry for people that have closed their minds to receiving any revelations from their studies of the bible. You obviously decided what the bible said long before you even began to study it. You spend all your time and effort trying to twist quotations around to fit your preconceptions.

    You actually misquoted yourself: here’s your actual quote from earlier in post 56:

    You can see why we are all growing tired of talking to someone who refuses to listen to anything that doesn’t fit his preconceptions that he had long before he even first opened the bible to study it.

    Besides the accusing tone, it’s also extremely untrue, and you are unqualified to make such a charge, for the following reasons:

    1) You do not know when I first opened a bible

    2) You do not know what my preconceptions were then

    3) You do not know if my beliefs now match any of those preconceptions

    Nor have you asked. However, if you had been diligently reading these threads you’ve been arguing on, you’ll notice there was someone who thought to ask, specifically, Ron. S. And my answer to him was that:

    1) I did not want to publicly share the details of my religious background, and

    2) Regardless, I had changed on enough issues that answering that question would give someone a false idea of what I stood for.

    But, because you claimed the power to read the thoughts and intents of my heart, and to know what my preconceptions were, I challenged you to tell me what those preconceptions allegedly were. In fact, I insisted. You refused and repeated more of the same slander.

    If you have nothing else but ad hominem attacks, I’m going to ignore you, and besides, that type of behavior really indicates that it is your personal faith that is irrationally biased.

    So, don’t expect me to answer an “Insulting Thomas.” There’s more than enough people here, including Jaco, Ron, Robert, Ray, (sorry if I missed anyone) … for me to spend my 3-posts-in-a-row limit on.

    -Andrew

86. on 01 Feb 2010 at 10:34 pm86 Xavier

    Andrew,

    In case you didn’t notice, I was agreeing with Jaco and voicing my personal agreement in the way of observations due to his post.

    I am done directly discussing the matter with such as you. So, you can go fly with your silly accusations.

    Goodbye!

87. on 01 Feb 2010 at 11:16 pm87 robert

    Andrew
    that was a uncalled for attack on a man who uses the written truth to prove what is acceptable.Thomas is proving what to believe not taking someones word on it. This man may not have all the answers yet but seems to have more than you.
    Thomas is a true Berean proving whats true using all the scriptures.
    this is the way we all should approach The Word of God.

    If it wasnt necessary to corect you then i would just ignore you but that doesnt seem like that going to stop anytime soon.

    i may not agree with Thomas in every way but can see that he is on the right path.
    you on the other hand came here with a self righteous agenda

88. on 02 Feb 2010 at 12:11 am88 Doubting Thomas

    Dear Andrew Patrick
    Concerning your allegation that I charged you with hypocricy.

    I just said there is a name for people that say one thing to one person and then the opposite to another and that word is hypocrite.

    I didn’t say anything about you being a hypocrite.

    (Perhaps you have a guilty concience.)

    You are the master of obfuscation and could talk in circles for weeks about whether black was really black and white was really white.

    In my opinion you are not sincere in anything you say.

    I have a life and I don’t want to spend the rest of it talking in circles. Like I said I pray that God will one day open your mind so you can study the bible without all your preconceptions.

89. on 02 Feb 2010 at 2:59 am89 Andrew Patrick

    Assorted answers for Ray and for Robert,

    Ray asked, [76]

    And when the Lord comes for those who are yet alive on this earth, will he not come with ten thousand of his saints? How would this be if those saints were yet dead in the grave?

    Sainted rise to meet God all at once, then living saints rise to meet everyone, then they touch down and God delivers judgment to all. (Jude 1:15). God “brings his saints with him” when he comes, by bringing them up from the dead.

    Ray asked, [76]

    How do those who do not believe that Christians commune with the Lord in heaven as soon as they are absent from their bodies,
    interpret what Paul wrote about this, in II Cor 5:5-9?

    By reading the actual text instead of the oft-repeated paraphrases, and acknowledging that the dead sleep.

    2Co 5:8 KJV
    (8) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

    Those two phrases are sequential, not equivocal. “Absent from the body” means “to die” and “present with the Lord” is “rising to meet him in the air.” They happen one after another, but nothing happens in between, because the dead truly know nothing.

    For the dead, they die, and [from their perspective] are instantly resurrected. They don’t go to a purgatory or a limbo or a “bridal waiting room for the bridge of the Lamb” in the meantime.

    Robert wrote [78],

    Just how does that take the freewill away from Jesus when he didnt know God knew this.
    this perfection was his own will.

    I understand God could be in multiple places at once but having 2 of him in heaven at same time would be needless and stupid.

    In your answer, you said that rather than “gambling” that his one specific mortal man would be sinless during his life (this had never happened before), you said that God “looked ahead” and thus predicted that this was going to happen with 100% certain accuracy.

    [So, assuming that Jesus was not God, a separate individual...]

    If God did exercise this type of power, then there was no chance that Jesus could have sinned: it was not a possibility, the future had already been written, and God’s precognitive prediction cannot be faulty.

    Because of the nature of those prophecies, there’s no second chances, and no opportunity for a “redo.” There was only one candidate that matched all of those criteria, and Daniel’s prophecy of weeks imposed a set time limit.

    The reason I asked if you were a Calvinist, is because one of the foundational principles of Calvinism is that men do not have free will – we only have the illusion of free will, and that God knows everything that we are going to do, before we do it, before we were even conceived, before the earth was created.

    But, you just said, “That perfection was his own will.”

    So, if the perfection of Jesus was his own will then it was not something that was decided, or could have been foreseen and prophesied. And in this context, by perfection we mean absolute sinlessness, without spot of blemish.

    If this was simply a scenario of a prophecy that a prophet would arise, things like that can be “forced” – a whale can be sent to swallow Jonah and make him warn Nineveh, and even a man like King Saul can experience “Divine manual override” to where he stops what he is doing, and lays down in the street naked to prophesy.

    But sin is not something that you do it is something that you think and something that you will. If someone does not have free will, they cannot sin. But if you “override” someone you didn’t make them sinless, you just prevented them from doing the sin that was in their heart.

    If I were to break down the open question I posed,

    1) To say that God gambled that this one person that he named Jesus would be a spotless sinless sacrifice might be technically possible, but in the same sense that it is “possible” that we evolved from random molecules washed off of rocks. This option is implausible.

    2) To say that God overrode the free will of this man Jesus to prevent him from sinning brings up the question: “Is it a sinless sacrifice where you had to lobotomize him to prevent his own will from becoming a factor?” And if analyzed, this results in the conclusion that this overridden behavior was not a separate will from God, but actually the will of God.

    Your “predicted the future” scenario is an indirect version of this possibility: because if the future is known with 100% certainty, then the targets of that foreknowledge have 0% chance to change that future. The “future” that you put forth as being predicted was a sinless heart, a freewill perfection, and this scenario contradicts itself.

    Considering this possibility also destroys the “Jesus had a separate will” argument. That option only exists under possibility 1.

    Without free will, even a robot, or a comatose vegetable (since birth) would be a perfect “sinless” sacrifice. This because absurd.

    3) So, if God could prophecy a spotless and sinless Lamb hundreds of years in advance, even from the foundation of the world, and it had to be done right the first time, (because otherwise he would be made a liar) how can he do this?

    There is only One that God can predict would be spotless, sinless, and represent the ultimate sacrifice for the redemption of fallen man. If God allows his creation to have free will, then there is only One that He can vouch for the perfect intents of their heart. And that is … Himself.

    Now, if God had free will, he had the power to sin [against his own laws] and exhibit hatred, envy, etc … and broken His own prophesies… but He did not, and does not. In the role of Messiah, of course he is going to cooperate with Himself.

    Summarizing this analysis:
    1) Option one (the Jesus Gamble) is implausible,
    2) Option two (assuming free will) is impossible,
    but (without free will) seems absurd,
    3) Option three (Jesus was God) remains possible and plausible.

    Robert wrote: [78]

    I understand God could be in multiple places at once but having 2 of him in heaven at same time would be needless and stupid.

    First, I haven’t been to heaven, and I don’t think you have been either, so I am assuming that you are talking about the Revelation of Jesus Christ that was given to John on Patmos. So, you aren’t so much commenting on heaven, but rather the elements of John’s vision.

    I would be careful before assigning a label like “stupid.” The Revelation uses a lot of symbols that are supposed to stand for other things: for example, at one point the Lamb is portrayed as having seven eyes and seven horns, and few people will argue that there are a literal Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

    Second, assuming you are talking about the book of Revelation, I don’t see “two of them.” I was just talking with Ron S. on the parallel thread of Sean’s titled “One God: Why does it matter?” So I don’t have to fill space by stepping through the same scriptures, would you be willing to look at post 53 on that forum?

    Robert asked [79]:

    Revelation 21
    3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

    why does this state ” he will dwell with them” when by yours and trinity belief he was with them during the thousand years

    What do you think “them” means?

    When Christ returns, the saints shall rise to meet him in the air… but the rest of the dead are not yet judged. Additionally, there will be survivors of that apocalypse who will have children, and grandchildren, for one thousand years. They have not yet been judged, either.

    Psa 51:17 KJV
    (17) The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

    Luk 20:18 KJV
    (18) Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

    The holy days of the Mosaic law rotated around two major harvest seasons: the earlier spring harvest, and the greater fall harvest. Those events symbolized by the spring harvest: Passover, the wave sheaf offering, the Pentecost, have already happened. Those events symbolized by the fall festivals are still prophesied to come… i.e. “the last Trump” in the Feast of Trumpets and the final Judgment of the Last Great Day.

    There was always a firstfruits of the spring harvest (Christ is that firstfruits, see 1 Cor 15:23) but the fall harvest was always larger and greater than the spring.

    Luk 4:18 KJV
    (18) The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

    In that last final day of judgment, the majority of the world population is raised and judged. Perhaps some may repent, and fall upon that stone (that chief corner stone which the builders rejected) and be broken, rather than be crushed to powder.

    robert wrote: [79]

    If Jesus was God than Why doesnt He Take care of this

    9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

    I don’t understand your question. He did. He released Satan for 100 years, to let Satan stir up the nations, and for all those that would rebel, he devoured them with fire out of heaven.

    In fact, I really don’t understand your question. Do you mean “why doesn’t Jesus take care of the aftermath?”

    Rev 20:12 KJV
    (12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

    Who judges them?
    a) God, not Jesus.
    b) Jesus, not God.
    c) Yes, Jesus is God.

    Joh 5:22 KJV
    (22) For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

    Act 10:42 KJV
    (42) And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

    2Ti 4:1 KJV I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

    And note, this is one person (singular) and not two. It says him, and not them, and his, not their.

    1Pe 4:5 KJV
    (5) Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.

    Robert wrote:

    So using your belief God came and took the book out of the right hand of himself. did he use His left hand to do this?

    Revelation 5
    7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

    Thanks for opening the “throne” argument. Note carefully, is there one throne, or two thrones?

    But first, how about looking at that verse a little more carefully, please?

    Rev 5:5-7 KJV
    (5) And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
    (6) And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
    (7) And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

    That’s an elder taking that book from the hand of him that sat on the throne. Notice, what it does not say:
    1) It does not say “from them that sat on the throne”
    2) It does not say “from them that sat on the thrones”

    But notice what it does say:

    …in the midst of the throne … stood a Lamb as it had been slain …

    Who has the throne?
    Rev 1:4 “… him which is, and which was, and which is to come;”

    Rev 3:21 KJV
    (21) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

    Rev 4:2 KJV
    (2) And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

    Rev 7:11 KJV
    (11) And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,

    Notice something here: before we were told that the Lamb stood in their midst, of these elders and these beasts, in the midst of this throne. Now all of these elders and beasts and angels have worshipped God, and worshipped the Lamb…

    … but if the Lamb is a separate individual, why is there no mention of the Lamb worshipping him who sits on the throne?

    Rev 7:17 KJV
    (17) For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

    Rev 14:5 KJV
    (5) And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

    Rev 19:4 KJV
    (4) And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia.

    Weren’t these elders and beasts worshipping the Lamb in the midst of the throne just a little while ago in Rev 5:8-14?

    Rev 20:11 KJV
    (11) And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

    Notice, it does not say “thrones” and it is not plural. It does not say “them that sat on it.” Yet we know that Jesus is the judge of the quick and the dead.

    Who is this that sits upon the throne?

    Rev 21:5-7 KJV
    (5) And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
    (6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
    (7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

    In this book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, besides this verse, he is named as the Alpha and Omega three (3) times, the beginning and the end two (2) times, and the first and the last three (3) times.

    He that sits upon the throne is that Alpha and Omega, that is, Jesus Christ. At this point, the dedicated Unitarian would have to argue that the meaning of “Alpha and Omega” and “first and the last” and “beginning and the end” has suddenly changed in this one verse.

    Rev 22:1-3 KJV
    (1) And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
    (2) In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
    (3) And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

    That is ONE THRONE. Previously, we established that it was a single “HIM” that sat on this throne, not a plural “them.”

    In case there is any remaining confusion about the identity of “Alpha and Omega” this is stated as plainly as plain can be in the finale of finales:

    Rev 22:13-16 KJV
    (13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
    (14) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
    (15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
    (16) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

    And I will say, that if the readers here will not believe that, I don’t know what they would believe. That couldn’t be said any more directly, or any clearer. “The first and the last” has always been used as a unique identification of the only LORD God, and never for anything else.

    It is extremely illogical, unreasonable, and biased to reject straightforward direct identification of Jesus as God, the same God that Isaiah called the “first and the last, and beside me there is no God” …

    …and then claim that I’m the one being unreasonable asking for even one instance of a straightforward denial of deity!

    That’s not too much to ask, is it? Of course it is, because there’s nothing of the sort! In the finale, we are told that him that sits upon the throne is Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, also named Jesus Christ.

    Robert wrote: [79]

    so you see your belief is even more silly than the trinity one.

    When Sean started this article at the top, he admitted that Unitarians hardly even consider that there might be one God named JESUS.

    And most every Unitarian argument I see against this still assumes that these are two different people, a classic example of circular reasoning.

    Please understand, if you want to persuade me, you need something stronger than a place where it seems like God is in two places at the same time, or where the gospel Jesus answers indirectly to remain incognito. Direct revelation and straightforward identification is the strongest type of absolute truth, and trumps all.

    Pro 25:2 KJV
    (2) It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

    May you search the scriptures to see if these things be so.

    Take care,
    -Andrew

90. on 02 Feb 2010 at 5:27 am90 Mark C.

    Ray asked, [76]

    And when the Lord comes for those who are yet alive on this earth, will he not come with ten thousand of his saints? How would this be if those saints were yet dead in the grave?

    Sainted rise to meet God all at once, then living saints rise to meet everyone, then they touch down and God delivers judgment to all. (Jude 1:15). God “brings his saints with him” when he comes, by bringing them up from the dead.

    Ray asked, [76]

    How do those who do not believe that Christians commune with the Lord in heaven as soon as they are absent from their bodies, interpret what Paul wrote about this, in II Cor 5:5-9?

    By reading the actual text instead of the oft-repeated paraphrases, and acknowledging that the dead sleep.

    2Co 5:8 KJV
    (8) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

    Those two phrases are sequential, not equivocal. “Absent from the body” means “to die” and “present with the Lord” is “rising to meet him in the air.” They happen one after another, but nothing happens in between, because the dead truly know nothing.

    For the dead, they die, and [from their perspective] are instantly resurrected. They don’t go to a purgatory or a limbo or a “bridal waiting room for the bridge of the Lamb” in the meantime.

    Well said. It is nice to know we agree on some things!

91. on 02 Feb 2010 at 8:04 am91 Doubting Thomas

    Andrew Patrick
    You said, = “Your “Predicted the future scenario” is an indirect version of this possibility: Because if the future is known with a 100% certainty, then the targets of that foreknowledge have 0% chance of changing that future. The “future” that you put forth as being predicted was a sinless heart, a freewill perfection, and this scenario contradicts itself. Considering this possibility also destroys the “Jesus had a separate” argument. “=

    You just finished telling me that there is no way you could be a hypocrite because you didn’t claim to be putting limits on God and of course God CAN predict the future.

    You are constantly contradicting yourself and you don’t even care in the slightest when it is pointed out to you. It’s just one more thing for you to obfuscate.

    Now you can clearly see why I and other people reading this “Long winded obfuscation” believe that you are not sincere in anything that you say…….

92. on 02 Feb 2010 at 9:45 am92 Jaco

    Andrew Patrick,

    I’d like to highlight the gist of one of the arguments you make. You said:

    If God did exercise this type of power, then there was no chance that Jesus could have sinned: it was not a possibility, the future had already been written, and God’s precognitive prediction cannot be faulty.

    Once again, Andrew, it is one thing to say what God did, but something completely different to what he could have done. This is a very weak basis for arguing a case, namely, suggesting what implications of alternative actions could be and then base a lot of one’s doctrine on those perceived implications. The doctrine you base your implications on, is, that Jesus had to be God. The syllogism goes like this:

    First premise: A fulfiller of prophesy without the possibility of error has to be God.
    Second premise: Jesus was a fulfiller of prophesy without the possibility of error.
    Conclusion: Jesus has to be God.

    The construction in itself is perfectly valid. The problem, however, lies in the veracity of the first premise. As true as it sounds, it creates a false dilemma. Why do I say so?
    Well, look at the following:

    Isaiah 44:27-45:1: “…the One saying to the watery deep, ‘Be evaporated; and all your rivers I shall dry up’; the One saying of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out’; even in my saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘You will have your foundation laid.’” This is what Yahweh has said to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue before him nations, so that I may ungird even the hips of kings; to open before him the two-leaved doors, so that even the gates will not be shut.”

    To use your line of reasoning, what if Cyrus’ mother had decided not to have children? What if Cyrus decided to be a “Jew basher,” instead of a fearer of Yahweh (Ez. 1:1-4). You see, Cyrus was also on a bit of a short leash. 70 years have been uttered for Babylon. Around 609 B.C Babylon rose as world power. Jerusalem fell in 587 B.C, and Cyrus ended the Babylonian supremacy in 539 B.C. What if Cyrus decided to take all the Jews to Pasargadae, Persia, and to contaminate their offspring by mixed marriages? No pure nation would have returned (as in the case of the Samaritans). What if the Babylonian kings decided not to have an indulgent party and not left the doors open. I could go on and on. Now, since God’s prophecy ensures 100% certainty, does that make Cyrus a mode or expression of Yahweh, even Yahweh himself? That is what you claim had to have been the case with Jesus.

    What about Abraham, the one through whom the promised seed would appear; what if he yielded to fear and not left Ur? What if he refused to listen to the angel and not had intercourse with Sarah? Or did not stop when the angel ordered him not to kill Isaac?

    Or, what if Yahweh stood by His decision after Moses descended Mt. Sinai, destroyed His stubborn nation and made Moses (a Levite) the new patriarch of Israel?

    Or, suppose Mary yielded to her sinful nature and fornicated with Joseph…she would not have been a virgin giving birth to Christ. Or, what if she decided to marry someone of another tribe, or, after being impregnated via holy spirit, decided not to flee to Egypt, or the Magi did not heed the angel’s warning and returned to Joseph and Mary…Then Jesus would not have been a pure descendent of Judah, or Herod would have killed both Mary and her baby Jesus…Does that make Mary or the Magi, or Moses or Abraham, for that matter, God?

    If I had more time, and our blog could contain tens, even hundreds of pages for a single post, I would have compiled a much more complete and exhaustive list of prophesies whose fulfillment was contingent upon the cooperation and obedience of individuals, without which would have spelled disastrous consequences not only for God’s people and eventually us, but also for God’s credibility. That is, if our understanding of prophesy and the “dilemma” it puts God in is correct. As the One perfect in wisdom and justice, who knows what other “emergency plans” He had in mind when He made His prophets utter the prophesies they did? As One who perfectly corrected the whole Eden-disaster immediately after the Fall (Gen. 3:15), how well do we know our God really? And how easy it is to throw out the baby with the bath-water, even changing central biblical doctrine that would have horrified the ancient faithful Jews, based on our understanding of implications of events, had they turned out differently to what God had stipulated…

    Fact remains that we have a biblical testimony of God. We can only identify Him from what He revealed about Himself. Beyond that, I’m afraid, is simply unverifiable and leads to absurdities…

    Jaco

93. on 02 Feb 2010 at 11:49 am93 robert

    Andrew wrote
    “Your “predicted the future” scenario is an indirect version of this possibility: because if the future is known with 100% certainty, then the targets of that foreknowledge have 0% chance to change that future. The “future” that you put forth as being predicted was a sinless heart, a freewill perfection, and this scenario contradicts itself.”

    Andrew
    you assumption would be correct IF we knew what God knows about the future.
    Your theory is so flawed because Jesus was only a part of this prophecy. for it to make any sense than all parties would of had to be God too. If they werent than there freewill could of made all prophecies false.
    Does the fact that there will be people living at the time when Jesus returns remove the freewill of everyone from when the prophecy was giving to the fulfillment of it.
    Mankind could of destoyed itself long before fulfillment of this prophecy.
    Just because God knows everything doesnt change our freewill.
    Now if he was to share my person destiny with me then i really wouldnt have freewill.
    Jesus sinlessness was his own choice for 30 years of his life using nothing but the scriptures as a guide.
    The last 3 years is where he found out what his destiny was but was guided by the Word of God written in his flesh. A more complete writting.
    Your theory is the one that removes freewill.

    “That’s an elder taking that book from the hand of him that sat on the throne. Notice, what it does not say:
    1) It does not say “from them that sat on the throne”
    2) It does not say “from them that sat on the thrones” ”

    Now i know your crazy. you think an elder redeemed mankind

    9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

94. on 02 Feb 2010 at 12:30 pm94 robert

    Andrew wrote.

    Notice, what it does not say:
    1) It does not say “from them that sat on the throne”
    2) It does not say “from them that sat on the thrones” ”

    Andrew
    Now you have proven there is no basis for your theory just what is the purpose for this discussion.

    Your imagination is not worthy of a discussion here.
    i am sure you can find some video game forum where they will think you are a god. Maybe some hamsters where you and your hand can be one
    Or maybe you could write a scifi book to receive your glory.
    Your not going to find your glory here because i for one am not impressed at all and my guess not many others are either.

95. on 02 Feb 2010 at 4:45 pm95 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Robert [93],

    9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

    You’re right, I misread that. That is the Lamb that takes the book, not the elder. But that only proves I’m not inerrant (which I wasn’t claiming anyway.) I’d always read that as the Lamb before, but last night I was trying to read it carefully, and I stopped to short, and got a different impression (thanks for catching that.)

    However, this doesn’t at all take away from the proof of who sits upon the throne, and that in the end of our book, he reveals himself as Jesus Christ.

    See, I have no problem with Jesus Christ and the Lamb being the same person, and the same God, regardless of the visual elements of a prophetic vision chock-full with symbols. Jesus Christ is allowed to be revealed as “him that sits on the throne” and the Lamb that takes the book from him that sits on the throne. That’s what the book says. Sorry if that’s uncomfortable for you.

    It seems that you don’t have an explanation of how come it reveals the name of “he who sits upon the throne” as Alpha and Omega and Jesus Christ in Revelation 21 and 22. So, what are you claiming?
    a> more than one throne?
    b> more than one person seated on the same throne?

    One more thing – before you start launching into a “freewill” dissertation, please think about it a little harder, about what it means, and implies. You should at least look up the phrase, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”

    But, to confirm that I understand what you’re saying, Jesus was sinless for 30 years as a result of his own works… and he suddenly had a revelation that he was the Messiah? Yet, God somehow knew 490 years in the future with 100% certainty that this specific person would never sin.

    You haven’t explained to me how every choice that a person makes can be known ahead of time, if they have any free will in the matter. Free will is about will, regardless if we are allowed to take action. Sin isn’t limited to action, it’s in the mind and heart.

    It would be a pleasant change if you’d stop “gnashing me with your teeth” when all I’m doing is considering the scenario you made up.

    -Andrew

96. on 02 Feb 2010 at 5:02 pm96 robert

    “he suddenly had a revelation that he was the Messiah?”

    Yes it descended on Him From above, Have you not read about his Baptism.

    Revelation 3
    21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

    Andrew
    I have no problem with Jesus sitting on HIS FATHERS THRONE with His Father and My father.
    Just sa he has no problem with His BROTHERS sitting on HIS THRONE WITH HIM.

    WOW 2 THRONES
    HOW COULD THIS BE?

97. on 02 Feb 2010 at 5:27 pm97 Andrew Patrick

    Dear Jaco [92].

    There is a very important word that we need understand its meaning, that is, the use and application of the word IF.

    When someone puts for a statement prefaced by the word “IF” it means that the scenario is being considered. IF the scenario contradicts itself, then that is an indication that the IF premise has been brought into question, or disproved.

    This is a classic style of logical argument, and the chief cornerstone of computer programming theory. In this case, I was allowing us to consider Robert’s argument, AS IF it were true.

    Please don’t mistake Robert’s argument for my argument. I entirely disagree with his premise. However, I was being fair by stepping through it and considering the implications.

    So, let’s review what you think I was claiming for an argument.

    First premise: A fulfiller of prophesy without the possibility of error has to be God.

    Second premise: Jesus was a fulfiller of prophesy without the possibility of error.

    That’s not what I said at all. This would be more accurate:
    1) God does not make prophecies that fail, they must be 100% accurate
    2) Although God can override the free will of a person, to make someone do something, by definition, this replaces free will.
    3) Because of the nature of sin, overriding someone’s will does not make them sinless. If we could make ourselves sinless by locking ourselves in a dungeon, we should, but sin is a matter of the heart.

    You need to make up your mind here: either God overrode a sinful nature in Jesus and MADE him unable to sin, or Jesus by his own free will WITHOUT OUTSIDE CONTROL was sinless.

    By the very definition of free will, it cannot be predicted – it is OUR choice, even if we choose to be stupid or self destructive.

    A> If God MADE him sinless, he did not have a separate will.

    B> If Jesus was sinless in himself, then no one but Jesus ultimately had a say in his decision, thus, it could not be predicted by anyone else.

    C> If God was Jesus, then he is able to predict his OWN will perfectly.

    To be productive, please choose A or B or C, or explain a fourth option D.

    To use your line of reasoning, what if Cyrus’ mother had decided not to have children?

    Some elements might have “changed” her mind – didn’t Jonah try to escape? Did not God harden the heart of Pharaoh? Is Saul not also among the prophets? In other words, even “Divine Override” can kick in to make her do something.

    But it wouldn’t make her sinless and perfect. Because, if it could, why wouldn’t God do that for everyone? Why allow sin at all?

    What if Cyrus…

    I’ve already thought this through long ago. Cyrus can be overriden, and me made to do what needs to be done, if necessary. Did not Nebuchadnezzar spend seven years as a beast?

    But, did being “a beast” make Nebuchadnezzar repent, or did his own free-will reaction to the punishment after wards make him repent? If it’s Nebuchadnezzar’s own free will, then by definition, it can’t be known 100%.

    I could go on and on…

    That same “override” formula answer each instance of that same type dilemna. What it does not do is to make someone sinless, and redeem them – repentance has to be a free will decision.

    Now, since God’s prophecy ensures 100% certainty, does that make Cyrus a mode or expression of Yahweh, even Yahweh himself? That is what you claim had to have been the case with Jesus.

    The cases are completely different, because one is simply a question of doing some things, and the other is a case of being the perfect spotless lamb without stain, spot, sin, or blemish.

    Or, suppose Mary yielded to her sinful nature …

    How about this: what if the father of John the Baptist would have insisted that his son be named something stupid … like Zacharias, thus breaking the prophecy by the angel? (Read the chapter please, if this seems unfamiliar…)

    Luk 1:59
    (59) And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.

    This “override” explanation is demonstrated in scripture. Most people will follow paths of least resistance, or hints, but when someone HAS to do something to fulfill a prophecy, and resists, it WILL be forced.

    However, being resistant to God where you HAVE to be forced is in itself, sinful.

    If I had more time, and our blog could contain tens, even hundreds of pages for a single post, I would have compiled a much more complete and exhaustive list of prophesies whose fulfillment was contingent upon the cooperation and obedience of individuals…

    I’ll save you the time. “Steering” or “DIVINE OVERRIDE” to all of them.

    But this does not MAKE a person sinless. Free will cannot be controlled, by definition. You can make someone take actions against their will, if they will not, but that’s not the expression of their free will any more, is it?

    I don’t mind your protest here, because you’re obviously thinking, and you’re coming up with specific examples. But I’ve given reasonable answers for all of them, including scriptural precedent to show that it’s been done before.

    So, we’re back where we started:

    a) Implausible “the Sinless Man Gamble” that allows free will
    b) Impossible “Jesus was Possessed so he would be Sinless” theory that eliminates free will
    c) Plausible “Jesus was God, therefore could be prophesied as sinless”

    Jaco wrote;

    central biblical doctrine that would have horrified the ancient faithful Jews, based on our understanding of implications of events, had they turned out differently to what God had stipulated…

    Fact remains that we have a biblical testimony of God. We can only identify Him from what He revealed about Himself.

    Central Jewish doctrine included that God himself physically wrote on the stone tablets when he talked with Moses face to face. This “impossiblity” that Unitariansm presumes is from Greek Philosophy, not Hebraic Judaism.

    When Paul speaks of Melchisedec, he is not summoning some foreign folklore that would horrify the Israelites. Paul was a Pharisee among Pharisees, and a Jew among Jews.

    Heb 7:1-3
    (1) For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
    (2) To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
    (3) Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

    Who has neither father nor mother, nor descent, nor beginning of days, nor end of life?

    This is from a book titled “HEBREWS” which is even specifically written in a way for the HEBREW people to relate. God has walked the earth, he can walk the earth, and this is NOT implausible or against his nature.

    Yes, Melchisadec was God, in the flesh, and he received tithes from Abraham, and called himself the priest of the most high God. Not TWO persons. One God, ALSO named Melchisadec.

    -Andrew

98. on 02 Feb 2010 at 6:57 pm98 robert

    Andrew wrote

    “By the very definition of free will, it cannot be predicted – it is OUR choice, even if we choose to be stupid or self destructive.

    A> If God MADE him sinless, he did not have a separate will.

    B> If Jesus was sinless in himself, then no one but Jesus ultimately had a say in his decision, thus, it could not be predicted by anyone else.

    C> If God was Jesus, then he is able to predict his OWN will perfectly.”

    Just why can it not be predicted.

    Many of times i have predicted the outcome of my childrens actions without interfering with their freewill. Had i interfered which i wanted too but didnt then they wouldnt of felt responsible or learned that their actions can create an outcome.

    prediction has nothing to do with freewill if the prediction is not known by the person.

    Jesus chose to obey God out of love for His God and His Gods ways for 30 years.

    For the last 3 years he chose to align his will with Gods will which included dying as the Lamb of God. he was very troubled by it but still chose it
    this is just how perfect this Man was and how strong his faith was in his God.

99. on 03 Feb 2010 at 12:21 am99 Ray

    Mark,

    The scripture lets us know that those who have died in Christ have departed their bodies and being absent from them, they were brought to be present with Christ, therefore we can see that when Christ comes, he brings those who have been with him.

100. on 03 Feb 2010 at 1:29 am100 Andrew Patrick

     Dear Jaco,

     I cannot keep up with the amount of text in post 80. I probably started with a long post, and every time a long post is completely responded to, it gets longer still. So, I’m going to try a different tack:

     1) I never invented the “Jesus calmed the storm, therefore he IS God” argument. Sean invented that argument for me (straw man) and so did you (just then.) What I did demonstrate, that in no way can Jesus calming the storm be used as evidence against his deity, and in fact, it is a proof of his divinity.

     There is such a thing as an absolute proof, and an accumulative proof (weight of evidence) – and since many people will go into flat-out denial at absolute proofs, weight of lesser proofs have value as well.

     2) You said that:

     Nature is not at issue here. Identity is. Jesus’ behaviour identifies him to be distinct and different from the God, Yahweh, he represented.

     If the behavior of Jesus identified him as being different from God, then he would not have said that if we have seen him, we have seen the Father.

     If you want to talk identity, this is absolute. Alpha and Omega is the Almighty, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, Jehovah, Jesus, the Christ, the King of Salem, the Prince of Peace, the everlasting father, the Son of God, the high priest of God, the captain of the host of the LORD, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb, the Word, the Light, the Rock, the King of Glory, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

     There is a tremendous study in these names, and names are used for identification. Look them up. They intersect, like facets on a gem. The only use names have is for identification.

     3) Jaco wrote:

     The listeners’ astonishment at the event undoubtedly filled them with awe, hence their exaggerated and amazing claims that they saw God’s face.

     You’re not quoting, and besides, you’re placing your desired conclusion over the integrity of the Bible account, not just one account, but pretty much all of the accounts. Maybe it really meant what it said.

     4) Jaco wrote:
     

     At no point in all Job’s experiences with God did God show himself to Job. Yahweh did, however display his power and greatness in the natural phenomena he made Job to see. In Job’s case seeing God was exactly one way in which we can see God (Rom. 1:20). Job’s experience and interaction with God undoubtedly resulted in his discerning or “seeing” the true God.

     Wait a minute… it sounds like you will allow God to be in a whirlwind, but he must have a lesser manifestation when he walked among us in the flesh, in Jesus, in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily? (1 Ti 3:16, Col 2:9)

     1Ti 3:16
     (16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

     Col 2:9
     (9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

     And yes, I protest your unfounded claim of “spurious text” – that word “theos” is rightly translated God. Besides the Greek, it would be nonsense to say that Jesus was manifest in the flesh.

     I’m sick and tired of arguments that “Jesus was never called God” and followed by scurries of revisionist scuttling to erase every place they find Jesus called “God” in the Bible. No sound doctrine needs such aids. If you want to press that type of argument, the discussion needs to shift to the topic of Bible preservation and integrity…

     … because any doctrine under the sun can be supported if you’re willing to claim the Bible is mistranslated enough times…

     4b) and while we’re at it, Jaco said:

     What the Bible does say, however is that Jesus was in the “form of God” which does show that he was different from God (Phil. 2:6).

     It says nothing of the sort, Jaco (or maybe your text is hacked?)

     Php 2:6
     (6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

     How does “EQUAL WITH GOD” mean “DIFFERENT FROM GOD?”

     5) Jaco wrote:

     I repeat what I said in my previous mail: It is one thing to say, men or angels were called God. It is something quite different to say that God was called “a man” or “an angel.”

     *Ahem* In Genesis 48:16, Jacob calls God “the Angel that redeemed me from all evil”

     Gen 48:15-16
     (15) And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,
     (16) The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; …

     So, you I’ve shown you where Gabriel is called a man, and I’ve showed you were the God that Jacob prays to is called an Angel. At some point here, you need to admit that the “genus and species” interpretation of these terms isn’t the language of scripture.

     6) Jaco said,

     Nor did he deny the accusation that he broke the Sabbath…

     You found a tree, but haven’t noticed the forest.

     Jesus made the Sabbath. Think like a Jew, for a moment (try.) What comes after, “Remember the Sabbath Day, and keep it holy?” Jesus declared that he was Lord of the Sabbath! Who blessed the Sabbath Day? The Sabbath does not precede its Lord!

     Regardless, have ye not read in the law, how on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? (Matthew 12:5)

     I think you missed the meaning entirely. The charge was irrelevant, because if Jesus broke the Sabbath, he was blameless. The priests were blameless in serving the temple [the house of God] and Jesus said he was greater than that temple.

     What is greater than the temple? He who the temple is made for. Think about “Lord of the Sabbath”

     Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

     Who is “Lord of the Sabbath?”

     7) I reject your “explaining away” the obvious words of Isaiah 9:6, but I don’t want to consume the blog with repeated text. So, I’ll fight dirty, and remind you that Trinitarians don’t like the plain reading of that verse, either.

     To try to rationalize that Alpha and Omega is used in any sense other than unique identification is absurd, especially considering it is used alongside with “beginning and the end” and “first and the last” and Almighty and God. You don’t have two of “the first and the last” and you can’t claim it’s being used out of the intended context!

     9) The “Nebuchadnezzar is God” argument is really dumb. Please, I’ve already answered that within one of these two threads. Please, think it over, and decide if you really want to put that forth as a serious argument.

     10) I’ll say it again. Claiming that Jesus said “I am not good” is a perversion and sheer wresting of the scripture. Here’s what was said (Matt 19:17):

     [question] “Why callest thou me good?”
     [statement] “There is none good but one, that is, God.”

     Perhaps I’m already talking down to you, but let me remind you that a question requests a response, it is not an answer in itself.

     Likewise, the statement defines the context of the question, because normally the word “good” agathos is not a name for God.

     11) Proper application of Gospels, Law, Prophets, etc…

     Have you noticed that most of the Unitarian proofs center around taking tiny details of Christ’s speech, where he was vague, or claiming that because he was born, ate, drank, slept, bled, prayed, died…. that he couldn’t be God?

     Yet this path forgets that Jesus didn’t come with a sword, and he wasn’t advertising who he was. He spoke softly, and let people say what they would. If you want to talk about the character of God and Jesus, they speak in parable.

     Old Testament evidence of God’s character in this regard:

     Pro 25:2
     (2) It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

     Isa 28:13
     (13) But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

     New Testament evidence of character in this regard

     Mat 13:10-11
     (10) And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
     (11) He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

     Mat 13:13-14
     (13) Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
     (14) And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

     I’m trying to explain why the Unitarian-class evidence is so weak: they attempt to take the area when Christ would least advertise who He Was, and try to vault this above the words of the Psalms, and the Prophets, and the Apostles, and the Revelation of Jesus Christ… and even try to explain away the uncomfortable parts of the gospels as “Jews didn’t mean it like that.”

     How would they know what the Jews understood? When you hear “Remember the Sabbath Day” does your mind fill in the rest of “For in six days the LORD your God created the heavens and the earth…” ? Were you raised with the stories of how God walked with Adam in the garden, of how he wrestled with Jacob, and how he wrote on the tablets of stone with his own finger? Do they understand that David is dead and buried, and no man hath ascended to heaven?

     12) What type of evasive maneuver is this, where you claim you have no problem with “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…”

     … by claiming that this Word was not God …

     When at the dead beginning of this gospel, John tells us that the Word WAS God? In fact, he repeated it in several ways so there could be no mistake.

     Please just be honest: you don’t believe John 1:1. Just take a magic marker and scrub it out, or a pen and edit it so it makes sense to you. Then you can say that you believe every word in your bible.

     You know it’s a sucky argument to claim that a text doesn’t belong. I could have already written both “Eternal Conscious Torment” and “Papal Supremacy” into the text if I was using the license you’ve already demonstrated.

     13) Jaco wrote:

     I dealt with this issue above. Rev. 1:1 irrefutable presents Jesus as separate, distinct and unequal to God as the angel he used was as separate, distinct and unequal to him.

     Sorry, Jaco, your claim doesn’t hold water, because Jesus identifies himself as the One God throughout this entire book, and at the end when you get to see actually who it is that sits on that throne he names himself as Jesus Christ.

     See, I read ahead. If you want to challenge me separately on Revelation, go ahead, but before that, you might want to examine those names, try to peek to find out the name of God on that Judgment seat (on that throne) etc.

     14) Jaco wrote:

     No, according to many textual variants this latter section should read: “…and they shall look upon the One whom they have pierced.” In fact, this is exactly the variant Jesus used in John 19:37!

     More revisionist scripture wrangling?

     You’re not only arguing against the KJV here, you’re also arguing against the Hebrew Masoretic text. That Hebrew “eth” there is “me” – and I happen to know that other posters here at Kingdomready already acknowledge this (they were trying to find a version that didn’t have the “me” there…)

     For the record, it is John’s notes, not the words of Jesus, and no, I don’t believe that John is reading from some secret “Hebrew variant” – especially considering that this is John, he has already equated Jesus with the LORD God of Zechariah.

     I wouldn’t be surprised if you would find Zech 12:10 edited in a Greek LXX version of Zechariah, but I have yet to see any solid evidence that the Greek LXX even existed in the time of John.

     I’ve actually seen where the LXX has been edited to try to fix a “perceived error” that the Greeks couldn’t explain between Moses and Stephen.

     When you have to start protesting the Masoretic text, you’re drifting farther away from having any sort of solid scriptural argument. Let’s just make up what we want, and edit the scriptures with a penknife.

     15) I think you need to read Revelation more carefully, and watch what’s going on more. No, it does not have the Lamb distinct from God, it equates the Lamb with God.

     16) Jaco wrote:

     Jesus didn’t correct Thomas, since he knew what Thomas meant, and that was in perfect harmony with the Hebrew monotheistic usage.

     Spoken like you’re quoting Sean Finnegan’s article made especially for that “trouble scripture” (I had it on my hard drive until it crashed a few weeks ago.)

     However, that argument is nonsense. It’s a flat denial of what it plainly says.

     “Hebrew monotheistic usage” recognized that when the LORD visited Abram in the flesh, Sarai laughed at the promise of Isaac because she did not recognize the power of God. Abraham paid tithes to one who was without father or mother, without beginning or end of days, nor end of life.

     And on top of this, Hebrew scripture is proves the deity of the Christ, without needing a single New Testament book – and it was from these Hebrew scriptures that Jesus explained these things to his disciples.

     For example, Thomas would have been familiar with the Masoretic text of Zechariah 12:10, and the King of Glory of Psalm 24!

     Joh 20:28-29
     (28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
     (29) Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

     All that “Hebrew Unitarian Usage” story is a flat-out conjured smokescreen. They aren’t Jews, and they certainly aren’t paying any attention to how God personally dealt with Israel, and I think it highly unlikely that Thomas had studied at the feet of the Greek philosophers to have meant it in their sense of an invisible God that only deals with his creation through divine agents.

     No, the best answer the “Jesus is not God” platform can muster here, is that even though Jesus would tell Peter to “Get behind me Satan” Jesus would not only let a mistake on the magnitude of blasphemy go uncorrected, but he would praise it, and that John would record it like this in the finale of his gospel.

     Closing:

     I was trying to keep this brief, but I’m not good at that. I leave the offer open to discuss things via email. You can find that if you click on the link from my name above.

     Take care,
     -Andrew

101. on 03 Feb 2010 at 1:43 am101 Andrew Patrick

     Dear Robert, [98],

     Many times we can successfully predict actions of individual people, children, or the behavior of large groups. But, there is a huge difference here between what you proposed:

     1) You do not predict your child’s behavior with 100% accuracy

     2) We are not even talking about behavior, we are talking about a perfect and sinless state of the heart and mind

     3) When you predict the actions of your kid, you have previous data to go by. You were talking about predicting the perfect heart and mind of someone who didn’t exist yet.

     4) By the definition of free will, you cannot make someone sinless.

     This has nothing to do with whether you told someone “This is your destiny” or not. If the prediction is 100% certain (and let us assume that all of our prophecy must be 100% certain) then your target has 0% chance of doing any different.

     But in this case, it’s not even “doing” we are talking about. We are talking about “being” perfect in thought and mind and deed. Sinless, not a robot or a mannequin.

     Jesus chose to obey God out of love for His God and His Gods ways for 30 years.

     For the last 3 years he chose to align his will with Gods will which included dying as the Lamb of God. he was very troubled by it but still chose it
     this is just how perfect this Man was and how strong his faith was in his God.

     You might want to reconsider your theory, a little. Jesus seemed to know what his role was when he was much younger than 30.

     Luk 2:42-50
     (42) And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
     (43) And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

     (46) And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
     (47) And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

     (49) And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?
     (50) And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

     Take care,
     -Andrew

102. on 03 Feb 2010 at 8:17 am102 Mark C.

     The scripture lets us know that those who have died in Christ have departed their bodies and being absent from them, they were brought to be present with Christ, therefore we can see that when Christ comes, he brings those who have been with him.

     The Scripture says no such thing. Please read my posts and deal with the Scriptures there.

103. on 03 Feb 2010 at 7:04 pm103 robert

     Andrew
     God can Foresee everything.
     If what you are claiming is true than For any prophecy to happen God has to take away everyones freewill.
     Its really wasnt a prediction, It was God foreseeing everything all the way to the end but not interfering.
     God knows whether you are saved or not before you were born because he knows who you are when you die.
     Your freewill is completely intact because God doesnt Not interfere.

     Andrew wrote

     You might want to reconsider your theory, a little. Jesus seemed to know what his role was when he was much younger than 30.

     (49) And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?

     You failed to include the verse which set the context.
     At 12 years old Jesus would rather study the scriptures than be drug about with them while HIS FATHER done HIS BUSINESS

     48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

     Why do you continue when Your theory can be shot down by 2 thrones and 2 separate beings sitting on the same throne.
     The fact is your theory doesnt hold up if God and Jesus are separate in Heaven and that makes all other arguements you use USELESS

104. on 04 Feb 2010 at 1:22 am104 Andrew Patrick

     Dear Robert,

     If you use the blockquote HTML tags, it’s easier to figure out what you’re quoting. There’s some useful formatting tips in the Pages -> Formatting Comments in the right-hand pane.

     Robert wrote:

     God can Foresee everything.

     Do you mean this to include the thoughts and the hearts of every man, woman, and child before they were even conceived?

     Robert wrote:

     If what you are claiming is true than For any prophecy to happen God has to take away everyones freewill.

     If I accept your version of “God can foresee everything” then yes, that means that no one has any free will at all, and this is all an illusion, we’re not responsible for our actions, and even our sins and whether we are ultimately cast into hellfire was predetermined.

     That’s the logical conclusion of your “God can Foresee everything.”

     And strangely enough, that is what you were saying…

     Its really wasnt a prediction, It was God foreseeing everything all the way to the end but not interfering.
     God knows whether you are saved or not before you were born because he knows who you are when you die.

     If our future fate has already been predetermined, we can do nothing to change it. Congratulations, Robert. You just discovered Calvinism!

     You also claimed that God does not interfere. But he does interfere! The Bible is full of stories of his interference. The “non-interfering God” is that false ethos God of Greek philosophy, again.

     Robert switched to a different topic, saying:

     Why do you continue when Your theory can be shot down by 2 thrones and 2 separate beings sitting on the same throne.
     The fact is your theory doesnt hold up if God and Jesus are separate in Heaven and that makes all other arguements you use USELESS

     Robert, Revelation defines Jesus as God. If you want to argue on the route you’re going, try finding “The Father” defined as “God” in Revelation. The word “Father” only occurs five times… here’s one of them:

     Rev 1:6 KJV
     (6) And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

     By the Unitarian argument that “and” means two different persons, you’ve just proved that “The Father” is not God. If you held “the Father” to the same strange discriminating tricks you submit Jesus, you’re left with only an invisible “God” that has no name anymore!

     * * *

     By the way, when I ask you “what are you going to say to avoid THAT proof” and give you an option of
     a) Two people on one throne or
     b) Two people on Two Thrones

     You aren’t being clever when you say “I’ll take both of them!”

     Reviewing why the “throne” focus is important:

     1) Jesus judges the quick and the dead: so who do you think sits on that Great White Throne in Revelation, judging the dead? The correct word is “God.”

     2) Jesus identifies himself as Alpha and Omega, Alpha and Omega, and Alpha and Omega. Alpha and Omega sits upon the throne, and says that he shall be our God. Figure it out.

     3) Ditto with “first and the last” and “beginning and the end” for point two above.

     4) When you see the Lamb with seven horns and seven eyes, who takes the book, he does receive the book from him who sits on the throne…. which is revealed as Jesus, Alpha and Omega. You want to argue that Jesus and the Lamb are two different people?

     5) Try presenting any sort of proof that “The Father” sits on the throne in Revelation, subjected to the same illogical standards you’ve tried to set on me for Jesus.

     Because, if they really are two separate people, as you claim, then the Father is dead or has been replaced by the time we get to Revelation.

     Rev 22:3 KJV
     (3) And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

     That doesn’t seem like two thrones to me, Robert. The Alpha and Omega sits on that throne, the beginning and the end, and it says that he shall be our God.

     And in the final chapter of Revelation, he tells us who this Alpha and Omega is, the true name of the beginning and the end, and the first and the last, and it is “I Jesus”

     Rev 22:13,16 KJV
     (13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
     (16) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

     So, figure it out, Robert. If there is only one throne, and there is only one God, and Alpha and Omega is that God, that is, the first and the last, and that One God who is the first and the Last finally names himself as Jesus, also known as the Lamb, the Word, and the Morning Star…

     What more fitting place could you have for this revealing, than at the finale of the final book when all things are made new? The drama and the mystery is over.

     The Father is revealed as the the Son of God, the Good Shepherd is revealed as the Lamb of God, and the Judge of the Quick and the Dead is also our Mediator between God and Men.

     If it isn’t obvious already, God is playing more than one part in this production! How does one be both a Mediator between God and Men and and yet their Judge of the Quick and the Dead at the same time? Answer: because he’s God, he gets all the good parts.

     Jya ne,
     -Andrew

105. on 04 Feb 2010 at 1:36 am105 Andrew Patrick

     Re: Does God know everything?

     God can Foresee everything.
     If what you are claiming is true than For any prophecy to happen God has to take away everyones freewill.

     For the record, I don’t believe that “God can foresee everything” as Robert means it. That does eliminate free will. “Divine Override” is sufficient to make specific prophesies be fulfilled (like the naming of John the Baptist, for example.)

     I do think that God can read our hearts, and even know what we’re going to do better than we do, but that we really are free moral agents.

     So, I’m still wondering if anyone else wants to field the “Jesus Gamble” question, so I’ll repeat:

     My “Jesus Gamble” question (open for all):

     If anyone here claims that Jesus had a separate will from God (and this claim seems to acknowledge the existence free will) how could God prophesy with 100% accuracy that he would have that specific person as a sinless sacrifice at least 400 years in advance? By the definition of Free Will, God can’t force someone to be perfect and sinless.

     Or, as a Unitarian, must you believe that God simply *hoped* that this one unknown yet-to-be conceived person would be the perfect man, when all others had failed, sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God?

     If you’re a Calvinist Unitarian and believe that Jesus was a separate person without free will (for the purpose of being sinless) I’d still be interested to hear if anyone would publicly make that claim.

     I still think that God did the job himself.

     -Andrew

106. on 04 Feb 2010 at 11:43 am106 Michael

     Andrew writes…What more fitting place could you have for this revealing, than at the finale of the final book when all things are made new? The drama and the mystery are over. The Father is revealed as the Son of God.

     Response- You have clearly stated your definition on the relationship between the Father and the Son and though it differs from the Unitarians position it falls into complete agreement with them and all denominations by taking procreation away from the Creator.

     Sean writes…It would be preposterous to have a Father and Son of the same age (for that is the situation with brothers not fathers and sons). Also, a Father cannot be his own Son. This is also impossible and militates against the definition of words. In other words, to make the Father the same individual as the Son is to destroy the meanings of the words Father and Son.

     Response- Sean points out that your definition of God as a Father and Jesus as a Son completely voids the meanings of these words but does not seem to see that he does the same by rendering Jesus the Son of God as meaning the agent of God.

     Andrew writes…how could God prophesy with 100% accuracy that he would have that specific person as a sinless sacrifice at least 400 years in advance? By the definition of Free Will, God can’t force someone to be perfect and sinless.
     Or, as a Unitarian, must you believe that God simply *hoped* that this one unknown yet-to-be conceived person would be the perfect man, when all others had failed, sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God?

     Response- Because this time God sent His Son who was in the form of God but made in the likeness of men.

107. on 04 Feb 2010 at 4:11 pm107 robert

     “Or, as a Unitarian, must you believe that God simply *hoped* that this one unknown yet-to-be conceived person would be the perfect man, when all others had failed, sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God?”

     Andrew
     I dont have to believe that God simply “hoped” all i have to do is Know that GOD is all knowing which is what is meant by “the beginning and the end”.
     Being all knowing means you know the end at the beginning therefore giving you the power to see 7000 years or more into the future so you can give prophecies with 100% accuracy.
     When God put His plan into motion at the Beginning he knew the outcome.
     People think everything is about them but its about Gods plan to develope perfect humans to love Him instead of just creating robot humans who could of been created to love Him.

     If Yahshua wasnt 100% human of the flesh and blood of Joseph the Son Of David than He wasnt The Messiah.

     Andrew nothing you have posted so far has made any sense using the scriptures as a guide.

108. on 04 Feb 2010 at 5:29 pm108 Andrew Patrick

     Dear Robert,

     You wrote:

     If Yahshua wasnt 100% human of the flesh and blood of Joseph the Son Of David than He wasnt The Messiah.

     How did you get that idea?

     Then you don’t believe in the Virgin Birth? Jesus was not flesh and blood of Joseph at all. Zero percent flesh and blood of Joseph. Do you still think he was the Messiah?

     Luk 1:31-34 KJV
     (31) And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
     (32) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
     (33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
     (34) Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

     Mat 1:23-25 KJV
     (23) Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
     (24) Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
     (25) And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

     Robert wrote:

     Andrew nothing you have posted so far has made any sense using the scriptures as a guide.

     If you still think Jesus was the flesh and blood of Joseph, I think I understand why nothing else I’ve said makes sense to you…

     -Andrew

109. on 04 Feb 2010 at 5:56 pm109 Andrew Patrick

     Dear Michael,

     The flaw with Sean’s argument is his claim that “Father” and “Son” must relate in the way eh wants it to relate, and in no other fashion.

     If you were to extend Sean’s claim that this “militates against the meaning of words” he has the same problem with the Good Shepherd and the Chief Shepherd is the same as the Lamb. A shepherd is never one of the sheep!

     Likewise, an intercessor and mediator is never the same as the judge, but Jesus is our intercessor, our mediator, and the judge of the quick and the dead, and all judgment is given unto him.

     Sean’s argument was flawed, but I didn’t feel that I had sufficient space to address it, and at the time I was totally unfamiliar with the editor commands such as italics, bold, and …

     indenting…

     I should point out that the natural relationship between a shepherd and his sheep is that he raises them for food. Regardless, an argument based entirely on an pushing a metaphor to an extreme (and ignoring all others) has trouble outweighing sheer equivalence and identification by the Person in Question.

     * * *

     Your answer to the “Jesus Gamble” question is….

     Response- Because this time God sent His Son who was in the form of God but made in the likeness of men.

     Isn’t that the same as “God himself became our Messiah?”

     Because, if it wasn’t…
     1) why answer evasively? I’m assuming we’re friends here, and
     2) that would open up some messier scenarios and questions… (depending on exactly what you did mean by that.

     I’d like to ask you something based on Robert’s response:

     People think everything is about them but its about Gods plan to develope perfect humans to love Him instead of just creating robot humans who could of been created to love Him.

     So, unless you’re granting the pre-existence of Jesus:

     Are you saying that Jesus was created perfect? If so, why would God allow all of non-perfect people to be made in the first place, if he could have done it right from the beginning?

     Take care,
     -Andrew

110. on 04 Feb 2010 at 6:52 pm110 robert

     Andrew wrote

     “Then you don’t believe in the Virgin Birth? Jesus was not flesh and blood of Joseph at all. Zero percent flesh and blood of Joseph. Do you still think he was the Messiah?”

     Andrew
     I believe with all my heart and mind that Yahshua is the MESSIAH.
     You just dont understand the Promise to David that the Messiah would come from HIS FLESH AND BLOOD and JOSEPH is the only ONE identified with the Qualifications. NOT GOD, NOT MARY.
     I get sick of people claiming there is some mysterious way the Holy Spirit can conceive a child when the Holy Spirit is not a person.ITS GODS POWER not his sperm.
     GOD CAUSED THE CONCEPTION BY USING THE SPERM OF JOESPH THE FATHER OF THE MAN CALLED JESUS(Yahshua).
     VIRGIN CONCEPTION OR NOT HAS NO IMPORTANCE MOST LIKELY ADDED BY PEOPLE WITH AN AGENDA LIKE YOU.

     If it was a virgin conception it was not this first and only

111. on 04 Feb 2010 at 8:38 pm111 Ray

     Mark, you’re denying a truth the apostle Paul told us of, that upon the departure of a Christian from his body, he comes into the presence of the Lord. See your post #102 and II Cor 5.

112. on 04 Feb 2010 at 8:57 pm112 Mark C.

     Mark, you’re denying a truth the apostle Paul told us of, that upon the departure of a Christian from his body, he comes into the presence of the Lord. See your post #102 and II Cor 5.

     Paul says no such thing. Again, please read my posts and deal with the Scriptures there.

113. on 04 Feb 2010 at 9:29 pm113 Ray

     Mark, deal with II Cor 5.

114. on 04 Feb 2010 at 10:22 pm114 robert

     “to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord”

     This is speaking of walking after the spirit as opposed to walking after the flesh and is address over and over again through out the NT.
     Walking after the spirit is to be present with GOD but it is being spoke of while we live this life we have not afterlife

     Romans 8:4
     That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

115. on 04 Feb 2010 at 11:36 pm115 Mark C.

     Ray,

     I have dealt with II Cor. 5 repeatedly. Once again, Paul says he has a desire to be absent from the body and present with the Lord, but he does not say that he would be present with the Lord immediately upon his death. It must be in harmony with the rest of Scripture, especially the other things Paul himself wrote. He clearly indicates in several other passages that he believed he would be with Christ at the resurrection and not immediately at death. It must also be in harmony with the many Scriptures that describe the state of the dead as being a state of unconsciousness which is only ended with resurrection.

116. on 05 Feb 2010 at 12:12 am116 Ray

     John 14:1-4
     Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
     In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
     And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there you may be also.
     And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

     Jesus is talking here in John 14 of the house of God where he was about to go unto. This is just before the crucifixion.
     Heaven is the Father’s house. There is a place for every Christian there. Jesus went there after his death to prepare that place.

     He came back from there to raise up his body which was in the grave after the three days.

     I liken the time for those Christians who have died, unto the three days when Jesus was in the presence of the Father in heaven.
     When Jesus comes back for his body, the Church, to gather it together, of all those in heaven and on earth, he will bring those who are with him.

     As Jesus was in heaven with God after the crucifixion, without his body, so also are those who are absent from the body, present with Jesus. (see II Cor 5)

     Jesus left his body here on earth during those three days it was in the grave, but his soul and spirit went to God in heaven. There he was in the house of the Father, in heaven. He came back to receive his body back to life again at the time of the resurrection of his body. It was sown an earthly body but was raised in glory.

117. on 05 Feb 2010 at 1:00 am117 Xavier

     Hey guys,

     Here’s a trustworthy quote from J.D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, “God and Humankind”, 3.6 Psyche and pneuma, pp 76-78.

     The difference between Hebraic and Greek anthropology becomes as clear here as anywhere. For in classical Greek usage the psyche is “the essential core of man which can be separated from his body and which does not share in the body’s dissolution.”[1] Here is the origin of the concept of “the immortality of the soul”, as the continuing existence of an inner, hidden part of the human person after death. In contrast, in Hebrew thought, nephesh [living soul] denotes the whole person, the “living nephesh” of Gen. 2.7.[2]

     The immediate inference which can fairly be drawn is that…the gospel is not about an innate spirituality awaiting release, but about the divine Spirit [God] acting upon and in a person from without…the spirit is evidently that dimension of the human person by means of which the person relates most directly to God [cp. Rom 1.9; 8.16; 1Cor 2.11; 6.17]…the human spirit is a manifestation of the divine Spirit [cp. “image of God”, Gen 1.26-27; “in the image of God has God made man”, 9.6; “the image and glory of God”, 1Cor 11.7; (Christ) “is the image of the invisible God”, Col 1.15]. This could well reflect the influence of Hebraic thought.

     …there is evidently [a Greek/Hebrew] overlap of meaning in the respective usage ranges of psyche and pneuma…both terms (psyche/nephesh and pneuma/ruach) express an original identification of “breath” as the life force.[3] In the Hebrew scriptures the overlap is evident in a number of texts.[4] Most striking is Gen 2.17…”

     Footnotes:

     [1] Jacob, TDNT, 9.611.

     [2] BDB, nephesh 4. Striking here is the fact that nephesh can be used of the dead person shortly after death, while the corpse still has the person’s distinguishing features (see Jacob, TDNT 9.620-21).

     [3] Jacob, TDNT 9.609, 618-19; Kleinknecht and Baumgartel, TDNT 6.334-37, 360.

     [4] BDB, nepheh 2; ruach 4.

118. on 05 Feb 2010 at 1:15 am118 Mark C.

     Heaven is the Father’s house. There is a place for every Christian there. Jesus went there after his death to prepare that place.

     Notice, this verse does not say “heaven.” The phrase “my Father’s house” can have a number of meanings, from the literal Temple, to the Household of God. “Heaven” is assumed, but that assumption is unwarranted. Further, in verse 3, Jesus says, “I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” Where is Jesus going to be? Many prophecies from both Old and New Testaments tell us he will be ruling in God’s Kingdom on earth, and that the saints will rule with him. II Corinthians 5:1-2 also refers to a “building prepared in the heavens,” but verse 2 refers to it as “from heaven,” again referring to its origin, not its permanent location. And Revelation 21:1-4 describes “…the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven.” Whether this is referring to a literal city coming down, or is a figure of the people of God, is the subject of some debate. But either way, the point is that it will be on earth, not remaining in heaven.

     The Kingdom is heavenly, and God’s gifts and the things of God are called heavenly, which is simply another way of saying they are from God. It must be remembered that “heavenly” refers to their origin and nature, not their location. The things of God, including His coming Kingdom, are of heaven, but that doesn’t mean we will enjoy them in heaven. J. A. T. Robinson wrote in his book, In the End God, that “heaven in the Bible is nowhere the destination of the dying.

     See “What Is the Gospel?” on my web site:
     http://godskingdomfirst.org/gospel.htm

     He came back from there to raise up his body which was in the grave after the three days.

     I liken the time for those Christians who have died, unto the three days when Jesus was in the presence of the Father in heaven.

     When Jesus comes back for his body, the Church, to gather it together, of all those in heaven and on earth, he will bring those who are with him.

     As Jesus was in heaven with God after the crucifixion, without his body, so also are those who are absent from the body, present with Jesus. (see II Cor 5)

     Jesus left his body here on earth during those three days it was in the grave, but his soul and spirit went to God in heaven. There he was in the house of the Father, in heaven. He came back to receive his body back to life again at the time of the resurrection of his body. It was sown an earthly body but was raised in glory.

     Once again, you’re simply making assertions with no Scripture to back them up. If the dead go to heaven, how do you explain these verses?

     Ecclesiastes 9:
     3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.
     4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
     5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
     6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

     10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

     Job 14:
     10 But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he?
     11 As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up:
     12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.

     Psalm 6:
     5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

     Psalm 115:
     17 The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.

     Psalm 146:
     3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
     4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

     Isaiah 38:
     18 For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.

     Job 19:
     25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
     26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
     27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

     Daniel 12:
     2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

119. on 05 Feb 2010 at 2:00 am119 Andrew Patrick

     Dear Robert,
     cc blog recipients,

     re: posts 108 and 110, Denial of the Virgin Birth

     You just said that you don’t believe what the Bible says in black and white. No wonder you say that nothing else I’ve said makes sense to you.

     Robert wrote: [post 110]

     I believe with all my heart and mind that Yahshua is the MESSIAH.
     You just dont understand the Promise to David that the Messiah would come from HIS FLESH AND BLOOD and JOSEPH is the only ONE identified with the Qualifications. NOT GOD, NOT MARY.

     …

     GOD CAUSED THE CONCEPTION BY USING THE SPERM OF JOESPH THE FATHER OF THE MAN CALLED JESUS(Yahshua).
     VIRGIN CONCEPTION OR NOT HAS NO IMPORTANCE MOST LIKELY ADDED BY PEOPLE WITH AN AGENDA LIKE YOU.
     
     If it was a virgin conception it was not this first and only

     Would anyone else like to field this one? Robert’s not going to listen to a word I say, and he doesn’t believe the plain words of either Old or New Testament, either.

     Or is Robert here a fair representative of biblical Unitarianism? He’s all yours.

     Take care,
     -Andrew

120. on 05 Feb 2010 at 5:36 am120 Jaco

     Andrew, you said:

     1) I never invented the “Jesus calmed the storm, therefore he IS God” argument. Sean invented that argument for me (straw man) and so did you (just then.) What I did demonstrate, that in no way can Jesus calming the storm be used as evidence against his deity, and in fact, it is a proof of his divinity.

     No, you definitely proposed a proof that Jesus’ calming the storm “demonstrated his Deity.” Here is what you said:

     I thought it was ironic that a powerful demonstration of Christ’s divinity was being interpreted as a “proof” in the opposite sense! You said that this proves that Jesus was not vigilant, and therefore, he could not be God. However, I think the facts show that God was diligent.
     1. The boat did not sink, and Jesus was obviously quite relaxed (and not worried) about the whole affair. If Jesus had been afraid, then you might have evidence that he was not God. Rather, “sleeping” demonstrates the opposite effect.
     2. God is quite capable of paying attention in heaven while sleeping on a boat at the same time. But if all the storms had been prevented, how would Jesus have demonstrated his mastery over the elements?

     You also said:

     His nature WAS revealed on that boat, and he calmed the storm with a word. The Jews would have been familiar with Psalm 89:8-9, 93:4, 107:28-29, etc… and the Jewish disciples recognized that the waves obeyed *him* (Jesus) and if they didn’t recognize their own Hebrew scriptures then, they most certainly recognized them later.

     Let’s not confuse the issues here. You view the event as a demonstration of Christ’s Divinity. You reach that conclusion by using a structural fallacy (affirming the consequent). Thus is your conclusion also fallacious. Did I and Sean misrepresent you? No, sorry. We accurately represented your argument, and demonstrated how it failed the test. You, however, misrepresented Sean’s argument. He didn’t use Jesus’ calming of the storm as evidence against his deity. He used Jesus’ sleeping on the boat as proof of his being different and distinct from the One who does not sleep, i.e, Yahweh.

     There is such a thing as an absolute proof, and an accumulative proof (weight of evidence) – and since many people will go into flat-out denial at absolute proofs, weight of lesser proofs have value as well.

     Agreed. The lesser proofs should preferably have weight in the first place, though.

     If the behavior of Jesus identified him as being different from God, then he would not have said that if we have seen him, we have seen the Father.

     No, fallacy again: False dilemma. If Jesus was the image of the Father (Col. 1:15) and imitator of the Father (John 5:19, 30), then, of course seeing the image means seeing the One he is the image of; while maintaining their distinctness.

     If you want to talk identity, this is absolute. Alpha and Omega is the Almighty, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, Jehovah, Jesus, the Christ, the King of Salem, the Prince of Peace, the everlasting father, the Son of God, the high priest of God, the captain of the host of the LORD, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb, the Word, the Light, the Rock, the King of Glory, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
     There is a tremendous study in these names, and names are used for identification. Look them up. They intersect, like facets on a gem. The only use names have is for identification.

     No, function too. In terms of function Jesus can possess several titles God also have. Once again you commit the structural fallacy of affirming the consequent. Applying this invalid way of reasoning consistently would have Nebuchadnezzar be God Almighty (King of kings, Dan. 2:37), Abraham be God Almighty (Our father, Joh. 8:33), we all be God Almighty (Light, Mt. 5:15), Peter be God Almighty (Peter means “Rock”)…I can go on: Your reasoning would have us believe that Jesus was the copper-serpent idol erected by Moses in the desert (Joh. 3:14, 15), or, that Satan is even Yahweh (2 Samuel 24:11, Chronicles 21:1).

     Let’s take use your reasoning consistently: If, at one place, God is identified as the One doing something, and then at another, an angel is said to be the doing it, you equate the two ontologically. Well, Andrew, you have just added to the list of Divine Identities also the angel Gabriel!:

     Luke 1:26, 35: “…the angel Gabriel was sent forth from God…and said to her: ‘Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.’”

     Luke 1:45: “Happy too is she that believed, because there will be a complete performance of those things spoken to her from the Lord.”

     This will have the Lord (God) be Gabriel…that is, if we argue as you do – ignoring any counter-proofs, reasons and context.

     You’re not quoting, and besides, you’re placing your desired conclusion over the integrity of the Bible account, not just one account, but pretty much all of the accounts. Maybe it really meant what it said.

     No, that’s what you are doing. God and Jesus explicitly said that no one saw God at any time. That should be your departing point for accurate hermeneutics. The rest should be interpreted in the light of what is explicitly stated.

     Wait a minute… it sounds like you will allow God to be in a whirlwind, but he must have a lesser manifestation when he walked among us in the flesh, in Jesus, in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily? (1 Ti 3:16, Col 2:9)

     The purpose for my pointing out your fallacious course is to do so in hopes of you stopping it. I say it again: do not put words or arguments in my mouth. If that is the course you prefer to take with God’s Word, the Bible, don’t do that with me, OK? What I indicated was that we can “see” God, or discern him from the power he displayed. We can also “see” Him through His dealings with people, His messengers he sends, and, ultimately, His image He sent. All of this, without seeing God Himself, because no man may see Him (Ex. 33:20).

     1Ti 3:16
     (16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
     Col 2:9
     (9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
     And yes, I protest your unfounded claim of “spurious text” – that word “theos” is rightly translated God. Besides the Greek, it would be nonsense to say that Jesus was manifest in the flesh.

     No, firstly, the variation in 1 Tim. 3:16 is not a claim, and secondly, it is not unfounded. Do your homework, consult the different variant readings and experts’ take on them, and then make an informed decision. Hint: OC was changed to ΘC in later manuscripts.
     Secondly, did you know that we are encouraged to have the “fullness of God” dwell in us? (Eph. 3:19). Besides, Colossians 2:9 deals with Jesus’ superlative fullness which was given to him after his resurrection – something God decided him to have (Col. 1:19, once again indicating distinctness and inequality). And yet, in that authority Jesus is still distinct and subject to God (1 Cor. 11:3, 15:27, 28).

     I’m sick and tired of arguments that “Jesus was never called God” and followed by scurries of revisionist scuttling to erase every place they find Jesus called “God” in the Bible. No sound doctrine needs such aids. If you want to press that type of argument, the discussion needs to shift to the topic of Bible preservation and integrity…

     Well, that’s your problem. That is an insurmountable hurdle Oneness and Trinity believers have to deal with, since the mode of reasoning employed will be inductive. Unitarians follow deductive reasoning from clear and unambiguous texts testifying to Christ’s humanity and Yahweh’s singular Sovereignty. Whatever changes of dogmatic importance did creep into the Biblical text should certainly be corrected. You just used one of them (1 Tim. 3:16, Textus Receptus). No such thing as a discussion on Bible preservation and integrity is needed. Textual criticism, maybe. Since you’re using the Authorised Version…you might have a problem.

     … because any doctrine under the sun can be supported if you’re willing to claim the Bible is mistranslated enough times…

     I’m glad you realize this.

     Php 2:6
     (6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
     How does “EQUAL WITH GOD” mean “DIFFERENT FROM GOD?”

     Well, firstly, you said:

     Check the scriptures, and confirm this. “Man” simply means “in the form of a man” regardless of whether it is man, God, or angel. “Angel” simply means messenger, although it usually means “supernatural being.” But when it says God, it can only mean God. Anything else has to argue that the scripture doesn’t mean what it says.

     Now, ignoring the actual reality of Sh’liach, and taking your reasoning at face value, you say that God is still God, even though he is in a different form. In linguistics we would call “God” the referent and his image, an attribute (angel). God is still God, while only appearing to be an angel (image). Well, that immediately refutes what you believe the Philippian hymn says about Jesus! Jesus was in the form of God. Jesus is the referent and his form, or image, his attribute. But Jesus is still Jesus only appearing to be God (image).
     Secondly, is the referent a possessor of an image belonging to another entity. If God appears in the image of a man, the referent (God) appears in the image belonging to another entity (man). That immediately calls for two ontologically distinct entities to exist in the first place. For Jesus to be in God’s image requires Jesus (referent) to be ontologically distinct from the entity he possesses the image of (God). It is really not that difficult.
     Thirdly, it is one thing to not think it robbery to be equal with God because he is already equal, but something totally different to not think it robbery to be equal with God because he humbly accepted God’s sovereignty. Searching the Gospels, the latter seems to fit the model better (John 5 & 6). And, ultimately, the glorification of our King and Lord, Jesus Christ (Ps. 110:1) is still to the ultimate glory of…God…not the Son, but God the Father, Yahweh, distinct and unequal to Jesus.

     *Ahem* In Genesis 48:16, Jacob calls God “the Angel that redeemed me from all evil”
     Gen 48:15-16
     (15) And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,
     (16) The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; …

     Here is a riddle for you: Who is the saviour in Jud. 3:15, and Isa. 43:11? We’ll proceed from there.

     So, you I’ve shown you where Gabriel is called a man, and I’ve showed you were the God that Jacob prays to is called an Angel. At some point here, you need to admit that the “genus and species” interpretation of these terms isn’t the language of scripture.

     Sorry, but keep your red herrings to yourself…your strawmen too. “Genus and species” interpretation is not the issue, sorry, but what Scripture reveals to us is. However convenient it is to erect yet another strawman (“genus and species”), the Bible explicitly says that Gabriel appeared to be like a man (Dan 8:16). His being called “a man” (Dan. 9:21) is explained by his appearance. Not so with God. The angels God used as messengers require a Message Giver (semantics). The Hebrew usage of Sh’liach explains why angels, humans and judges can be called God. That is the explanation. That explanation is different from the one given in the case of Gabriel, so, no connection there, sorry.

     Exodus 23:20, 21 “And behold, I send my messenger before your face, that he may guard you in the way, that he may bring you into the land which I prepared for you. Take heed to yourself and hearken to him, and do not resist his persuasion, for he should not avoid you, for my name is upon him.”

     This is the revealed way, explicitly stating how God used his messengers as His agents.
     You said:

     Jesus made the Sabbath. Think like a Jew, for a moment (try.) What comes after, “Remember the Sabbath Day, and keep it holy?” Jesus declared that he was Lord of the Sabbath! Who blessed the Sabbath Day? The Sabbath does not precede its Lord!

     Well, exactly! Do you see what you just did? You tested the wicked Jews’ unfounded accusation and found their judgment to be lacking in light of Scripture. From what the rest of Scripture says and what Jesus himself said, he did not break the Sabbath. For exactly the same reasons do I also reject their accusation that he claimed to be God! Because neither the rest of Scripture, nor Jesus’ own words confirm their wicked and unfounded accusation. Sorry, no proof here.

     7) I reject your “explaining away” the obvious words of Isaiah 9:6, but I don’t want to consume the blog with repeated text. So, I’ll fight dirty, and remind you that Trinitarians don’t like the plain reading of that verse, either.

     Well, your fighting dirty doesn’t surprise me. You’ve been doing it since a few posts back. No explaining away. Your arguments simply don’t hold up.

     To try to rationalize that Alpha and Omega is used in any sense other than unique identification is absurd, especially considering it is used alongside with “beginning and the end” and “first and the last” and Almighty and God. You don’t have two of “the first and the last” and you can’t claim it’s being used out of the intended context!

     Yet another strawman. I never claimed that there are two of the one “first and the last.” Could you stop doing it already? I provided you the intended context both in the case of Yahweh, and then later in the case of the Lord of the New Creation, Jesus. Unless there is direct, irrefutable ontological identification, and not functional nomination, you do not have a case!

     9) The “Nebuchadnezzar is God” argument is really dumb. Please, I’ve already answered that within one of these two threads. Please, think it over, and decide if you really want to put that forth as a serious argument.

     Yea, isn’t it dumb? It demonstrably follows your line of reasoning, and, by your own words, it is dumb! But, you see, Andrew, it is one thing to attack the position, but something quite different to critically argue a position. I think you should think it over. The argument to prove that Jesus is God (using your words) “is dumb,” for the very same reasons.

     10) I’ll say it again. Claiming that Jesus said “I am not good” is a perversion and sheer wresting of the scripture. Here’s what was said (Matt 19:17):
     [question] “Why callest thou me good?”
     [statement] “There is none good but one, that is, God.”
     Perhaps I’m already talking down to you, but let me remind you that a question requests a response, it is not an answer in itself.

     No, try your red herrings on someone else. You are perverting and wrestling with what Scripture explicitly states. By Jesus’ reply, he denies the compliment and points to the One deserving it. It is as simple as that. Unless you’re of alien descent and human language serves no function to you.

     Likewise, the statement defines the context of the question, because normally the word “good” agathos is not a name for God.

     This statement has no relevance to what you said. Your equivocation between the two words kalos and agathos was highlighted. I showed you the exact analogy when I referred to chocolate. Your argument amounts to this: Chocolate tastes good. Hence, it is good to eat chocolate. Confusing the issues won’t serve the purpose of truth; maybe your purpose, but not the purpose of truth. My argument still stands as I’ve demonstrated here and previously. Attacking my arguments (calling them dumb) or misrepresenting me are fallacious courses you continue to take.

     11) Proper application of Gospels, Law, Prophets, etc…
     Have you noticed that most of the Unitarian proofs center around taking tiny details of Christ’s speech, where he was vague, or claiming that because he was born, ate, drank, slept, bled, prayed, died…. that he couldn’t be God?
     Yet this path forgets that Jesus didn’t come with a sword, and he wasn’t advertising who he was. He spoke softly, and let people say what they would. If you want to talk about the character of God and Jesus, they speak in parable.

     No, sorry, speak for yourself. As I have pointed out previously, Trinitarians and Oneness believers have to make use of extra-biblical language to equate Jesus with Yahweh ontologically. They also have to use ambiguous language (Trinitarian usage of “God”) in their creeds which has no biblical precedent. They also have to make use of indirect and inductive “proofs” to equate Jesus with Yahweh, which reasoning could prove that even humans, angels, Nebuchadnezzar, Jesus’ disciples, Moses, ancient judges, Gabriel, even Satan, all should be Yahweh as well. Not only are the trinitarian and Oneness arguments demonstrably few, out of context (immediate, extended and cultural), and inconsistent, they’re by design weak (logically).
     Here, again, you commit the structural fallacy of affirming the consequent:
     If Jesus is God, he will reflect God’s character. Jesus reflects God’s character, so he is God. Fallacious, sorry. Reflecting God’s character could also mean that he is the exact image thereof. The difference is, unless you can proof that Jesus’ reflection of God’s character can solely be ascribed to him by virtue of their ontological identity, you don’t have a case. I, on the other hand, can prove that Jesus’ reflecting God’s character is by virtue of his being God’s exact image (Heb. 1:1-4).

     I’m trying to explain why the Unitarian-class evidence is so weak: they attempt to take the area when Christ would least advertise who He Was, and try to vault this above the words of the Psalms, and the Prophets, and the Apostles, and the Revelation of Jesus Christ… and even try to explain away the uncomfortable parts of the gospels as “Jews didn’t mean it like that.”

     Nothing in Scripture makes us uncomfortable, Andrew (ad hominem attack). What you state above is demonstrably irrelevant and untrue. Your arguments do not hold, and that’s why they won’t be accepted. In whole confessional discourses Jesus is explicitly presented as distinct and perfectly subordinate to his God, Yahweh. (Act. 2, 3, 5, 13, 17, 1 Cor. 8:6, Eph. 4, 1 Tim 2)

     12) What type of evasive maneuver is this, where you claim you have no problem with “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…”
     Please just be honest: you don’t believe John 1:1. Just take a magic marker and scrub it out, or a pen and edit it so it makes sense to you. Then you can say that you believe every word in your bible.
     You know it’s a sucky argument to claim that a text doesn’t belong. I could have already written both “Eternal Conscious Torment” and “Papal Supremacy” into the text if I was using the license you’ve already demonstrated.

     Ok, Andrew, please read the terms of this forum again. Enough is enough. You’re wasting my and everybody else’s time with your time- and space- consuming uncalled-for remarks. Stick to the arguments and keep the ad hominem attacks and misrepresentations out of this!

     To answer the little sense you did have in the above-mentioned mess,

     The word was described as being divine. God’s word was in perfect harmony with what he intended it to accomplish. That word materialized when Yahweh created Jesus in Mary’s womb. “The word was God” is an inaccurate translation of what it originally said. Do some research on the original Greek. Mistranslation by trinitarians and convenient ambiguity in English made them scrub out what it originally said, creating their own Bible, one of which emerged in 1611.

     Sorry, Jaco, your claim doesn’t hold water, because Jesus identifies himself as the One God throughout this entire book, and at the end when you get to see actually who it is that sits on that throne he names himself as Jesus Christ.
     See, I read ahead. If you want to challenge me separately on Revelation, go ahead, but before that, you might want to examine those names, try to peek to find out the name of God on that Judgment seat (on that throne) etc.

     Rev. 2:7: “To him that conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of Life, which is in the paradise of my God”
     Rev. 3:2: “…for I have not found your deeds fully performed before my God.”
     Rev. 3:12: “…I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God and that new name of mine.”
     All these instances prove ontological inequality and distinctness between Jesus and his God. They have different names and in vision depicted as different persons. The whole idea that they have one throne is no prove of ontological identity, esp. not in the face of other overwhelming evidence proving otherwise. That is a slippery slope fallacy.

     You’re not only arguing against the KJV here, you’re also arguing against the Hebrew Masoretic text. That Hebrew “eth” there is “me” – and I happen to know that other posters here at Kingdomready already acknowledge this (they were trying to find a version that didn’t have the “me” there…)

     Andrew, please, if you don’t use the Hebrew correctly, then don’t. “eth” does not mean “me,” OK? Go look up a lexicon and find out what the different uses of “eth” is, as well as the meanings attached to it in association with other words.
     When “eth” and “asher” occur together as a phrase, and in the particular grammatical structure, such as is found in Zechariah 12:10B(i), the phrase “eth asher” must be read as, “because of” or “concerning or regarding [something]” or simply “because” or “that which”, but not simply as whom, which are common in some translations. The particular translation depends on the context of the specific passage. The following example demonstrates this in another passage which has a grammatical structure similar to Zechariah 12:10B(i):

     1 Samuel 30:23 – And David said, “You will not do so, my brothers, CONCERNING THAT WHICH [eth asher] the Lord has given us, and He watched over us, and delivered the troop that came against us into our hand.

     No “revisionist wrangling” here. The rendering “…look upon me because of whom they have pierced” is perfectly valid.
     You said:

     For the record, it is John’s notes, not the words of Jesus, and no, I don’t believe that John is reading from some secret “Hebrew variant” – especially considering that this is John, he has already equated Jesus with the LORD God of Zechariah.

     Well, that’s convenient! And you call me revisionist? John quoted what Jesus said. And I, quite frankly, believed that John was inspired to write what he did.

     When you have to start protesting the Masoretic text, you’re drifting farther away from having any sort of solid scriptural argument. Let’s just make up what we want, and edit the scriptures with a penknife.

     Well, that’s what you did with John’s quote…how convenient. If rejecting John’s rendering of Jesus’ words in preference to an OT scripture (which confirms Jesus’ words), why don’t you apply this “rule” consistently in the case of people “seeing God?” Why don’t you use the same argument in rejecting people’s unfounded claim of seeing God in preference to God’s and Jesus’ own words saying the exact opposite??? You have double standards, man.

     You wrote:

     However, that argument is nonsense. It’s a flat denial of what it plainly says.

     No, your arguments are demonstrably nonsense. Don’t attack my arguments, logically refute them. Preferably without continuously resorting to fallacious reasoning.

     You said:

     All that “Hebrew Unitarian Usage” story is a flat-out conjured smokescreen. They aren’t Jews, and they certainly aren’t paying any attention to how God personally dealt with Israel, and I think it highly unlikely that Thomas had studied at the feet of the Greek philosophers to have meant it in their sense of an invisible God that only deals with his creation through divine agents.

     Nice try, but, no. Ours is the authentic and confirmed Hebrew monotheistic usage. The very same Thomas and our Lord were immersed in. Yours, my friend is a pagan depiction of the Hebrew God who comes and goes, appears and disappears in mysterious incarnations and avatars. The Scriptures you demonstrably abused to reach that conclusion were shown to be lacking weight. To reiterate your line of reasoning: Do you think that the God of the Bible, Yahweh, is so weak so as to be unable to be intimately present and involved in the affairs of man by using his agents (sh’liachim)? From what you said, He is…
     I imported your post from the other tread to this one. I did it, since the content seems to merge. I also think it will simplify the correspondence process.

     1) God does not make prophecies that fail, they must be 100% accurate
     2) Although God can override the free will of a person, to make someone do something, by definition, this replaces free will.
     3) Because of the nature of sin, overriding someone’s will does not make them sinless. If we could make ourselves sinless by locking ourselves in a dungeon, we should, but sin is a matter of the heart.

     I agree with what you wrote here. I agree with these at face value. Just to ensure that a false dilemma is not created here, I’d like to point out that overriding someone’s will is not the only means by which God nevertheless achieves his purpose.
     Compare Exodus 6:6-8, where Yahweh repeats His promises to the nation of Israel, that they would be His people (as He promised Abraham) to Ex. 32:7-10, where Yahweh wants to fulfill his promises through Moses and righteously exterminate Israel, and Ex. 32:11-14, where His face was softened, and felt regret over His previous plan. This indicates that Yahweh has His promises. Regardless of how people react, He would still fulfill his promises. Overriding someone’s will is an option, but in His great wisdom, as is shown here, that is not the only means. Yahweh sticks to His promises, He will have “back-up plans,” if we could call it that, as in the case of Gen. 3:15, and in none of His dealings compromise His faithfulness (Tit. 1:2).

     You need to make up your mind here: either God overrode a sinful nature in Jesus and MADE him unable to sin, or Jesus by his own free will WITHOUT OUTSIDE CONTROL was sinless.
     By the very definition of free will, it cannot be predicted – it is OUR choice, even if we choose to be stupid or self destructive.
     A> If God MADE him sinless, he did not have a separate will.
     B> If Jesus was sinless in himself, then no one but Jesus ultimately had a say in his decision, thus, it could not be predicted by anyone else.
     C> If God was Jesus, then he is able to predict his OWN will perfectly.
     To be productive, please choose A or B or C, or explain a fourth option D.

     First off, you’re starting with a fallacious premise. Being created sinless does not absolve the possession of free will. Angels were created sinless, as were Adam and Eve. They certainly had to use free will in order to choose between obeying and disobeying God. Your subsequent deductions and inductions, based on this fallacy will also be fallacious. You’re also assuming that a predicted outcome is only contingent upon a person’s decision without considering contributing, preparatory, even substitute factors provided by God Himself to ensure the predicted outcome. Since Jesus was born sinless, sinning for him would have involved a deliberate act of disregard for God’s Sovereignty. The temptation, thus, could not have come from within, only from without. It still does not reduce and weaken God’s wisdom and sovereignty over his own will to a position where he was completely surrendered to the outcome of what happens here on earth.
     You see, here is where you create the false dilemma. Why do you force God into this either/or situation? God is certainly able to create alternative means of achieving what He promised, without compromising any of the crucial issues involved. The very same can be said about Job’s trials. Integrity was at stake here. Obviously, interfering with the tribulation and temptation Job was subjected to would have Yahweh break His own rules, and would have made Satan rejoice and have given him all the reason to call God a cheater! (God forgive me). Consider Job 1:8-12, 2:3-8. Well, Job passed the test (Jas. 5:11). Did God have an emergency plan? Maybe, it doesn’t say. It still did not take away free will. It still did not have God interfere to the extent that Job’s tests and Satan’s challenge would be compromised. That does not make Job God, nor does that indicate that his and God’s wills are the same will!

     That same “override” formula answer each instance of that same type dilemna. What it does not do is to make someone sinless, and redeem them – repentance has to be a free will decision.

     Take the example of Abraham. Heb. 11:8-10, 17-19: “By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed in going out into a place he was destined to receive as an inheritance’ and he went out, although not knowing where he was going. By faith he resided as an alien in the land of the promise as in a foreign land, and dweldt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the very same promise. For he was awaiting the city having real foundations, the builder and maker of which is God. By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac, and the man that had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up his only-begotten, although it had been said to him: ‘What will be called “your seed” will be through Isaac.’ But he reckoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead; and from there he did receive him also in an illustrative way.”

     You see, Andrew, the very same reasoning could be applied here. It is on the basis of faith that God built his promises to Abraham. God crucially tested Abraham on several occasion after He made the promises to Abraham. Yes, God could have forced Abraham to do things, had he refused to, and much of the same could have turned out, but, then Abraham would not be called faithful, see? Then Abraham would not have been the father of everyone having faith, nor would his faith have been the basis for accepting non-Jewish Gentiles as a basis for heirship of God’s promises (Rom. 9:7, 8; Gal. 3:23-29). Many implications, had God decided to “override his will.” Yet, that did not prevent God from uttering the promise, nor of putting a nation, an eventual New Nation, and the Messiah at risk. Did God have an “emergency plan,” had Abraham failed in his required action and the ultimate faith-legacy so central to the rest of God’s plan? Well, judged by His action in Genesis 3:15, the All-wise God, Yahweh most probably had his options covered. Does that make Abraham God? No ways.

     However, being resistant to God where you HAVE to be forced is in itself, sinful.

     Yes, thus, in the case of Job, integrity was shown. Job did not sin, i.e. fall short of the integrity which he was tempted on. Likewise, Abraham did not fall short of the faith he required to be our father which he was tempted on.

     I’ll save you the time. “Steering” or “DIVINE OVERRIDE” to all of them.

     No, definitely not. Steering is not the only option for God to achieve what He had promised. He did not steer Adam and Eve, nor Satan and the demons into not sinning. Yet, in His wisdom, he provided all the solutions needed.

     I don’t mind your protest here, because you’re obviously thinking, and you’re coming up with specific examples. But I’ve given reasonable answers for all of them, including scriptural precedent to show that it’s been done before.

     Don’t answer my questions for me. I urge you to return to the admirable person you initially presented yourself to be. Such a person doesn’t need fallacious reasoning to state his case. No use “poisoning the well” here. I gave an explanation to your answers which were all but complete.

     So, we’re back where we started:
     a) Implausible “the Sinless Man Gamble” that allows free will
     b) Impossible “Jesus was Possessed so he would be Sinless” theory that eliminates free will
     c) Plausible “Jesus was God, therefore could be prophesied as sinless”

     No, we’re not. We’re still where the Bible left us. Jesus was a perfect man, born of a virgin. He was the son of God, thus, an ontologically different and distinct person (as reflected in language) and anthropomorphically inferior and distinct from his Father. As the Messiah, he was the one to redeem mankind. He was the “second Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45), providing a sacrifice equal to what was required to redeem us (Rom. 5:15-20). In order to provide this sacrifice, Jesus had to remain sinless. When confronted with sin, Jesus proved to be faithful (1 Pet. 2:21, 22). He was tempted exactly as sinful people are tempted, yet, he didn’t sin (Heb. 4:15). It had to happen, so as to ensure his legitimacy (Heb. 5:8, 9). After his death, his resurrection ultimately proved his entitlement as Redeemer (Rom. 1:4). All these things, as well as the prophecies of the Suffering Servant, and the expression of God having forsaken him on the cross are all things Yahweh Himself prophesied about. As with Adam and Eve, Abraham and Job, was Yahweh surrendered to the decisions of people? Was he as it were bound to the decisions people make before He could have His will be done? Of course not! As the One who “causes to become,” Yahweh has demonstrated His great wisdom in that, even if His human agents fail Him, the most faithful of whom was Christ Jesus, even then the Sovereign has a way out. No need to resort to speculation. No need to impose upon Scripture what it doesn’t say, and definitely no need to change Jewish monotheism into something that would have horrified the faithful Jews of old!

     Fact remains that we have a biblical testimony of God. We can only identify Him from what He revealed about Himself.
     Central Jewish doctrine included that God himself physically wrote on the stone tablets when he talked with Moses face to face. This “impossiblity” that Unitariansm presumes is from Greek Philosophy, not Hebraic Judaism.

     No, no, you’ve taken it too far. You have no proof that God physically wrote on the stone tablets. In fact, the law was transmitted to Moses through angels (Gal. 3:19). Angels, messengers, require the Message Giver different and distinct from the messenger. The angels were agents, by the law of Sh’liach. That very law is Jewish, not Greek! The impossibility of seeing God is something God Himself states and Jesus himself repeated. The usage of calling the agents of Yahweh by His name is, once again, a perfectly valid practice where Sh’liach is involved (Ex. 23:20, 21). That is the Jewish paradigm one has to read the Bible in.

     When Paul speaks of Melchisedec, he is not summoning some foreign folklore that would horrify the Israelites. Paul was a Pharisee among Pharisees, and a Jew among Jews.

     Exactly! So, to use Paul’s words, misapply them and create a doctrine based on other fallacious leaps and Scriptural twists would, in fact, horrify those Jews.

     Heb 7:1-3
     (1) For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
     (2) To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
     (3) Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
     Who has neither father nor mother, nor descent, nor beginning of days, nor end of life?
     This is from a book titled “HEBREWS” which is even specifically written in a way for the HEBREW people to relate. God has walked the earth, he can walk the earth, and this is NOT implausible or against his nature.
     Yes, Melchisadec was God, in the flesh, and he received tithes from Abraham, and called himself the priest of the most high God. Not TWO persons. One God, ALSO named Melchisadec.

     Now, this is the kind of reasoning that would have horrified those Jews. Everything else involved is simply ignored and Scripture is strained to fit a doctrine. Reasoning the way you do indicates that you’re missing the whole issue involved. Firstly, where it comes to Jesus’ physical descent, Jesus did not qualify to be a priest by the Levitical order, since he descended from the tribe of Judah. However, according to Genesis 14 Yahweh had a priest whose genealogy is unknown. The very fact that this one is a priest, makes him different and distinct from the One Whom he is priest of. In fact, what Paul previously said puts both Melchizedek and Jesus immediately in the same league as being humans, not God:

     Hebrews 5:4-6 “Also, a man takes this honor, not of his own accord, but only when he is called by God, just as Aaron also was. So too the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but by Him who spoke with reference to him: ‘You are my son; I, today, I have become your father.’ Just as he says also in another place: ‘You are a priest forever according to the manner of Melchizedek.’”

     This is the very conceptual setting within which subsequent additional statements are to be understood. Not the way you go about. The very fact that Jesus is to be a priest has to make him a priest of Someone else. Since Melchizedek had no genealogy, no children, no age, nor death recorded, in that way was he “fatherless, motherless, of unknown genealogy [agenealogitos], neither beginning of days, nor of having an end of life, and taking an exact image [aphwmoiwmenos] to the son of God.” He was not the son of God, whom he took the image of.

     In fact, the very book you’re quoting says that the Son of God was only the means by which God communicated to the world in the latter part of the days. (Heb. 1:1-4).

     The fallacious course you’re taking still amounts to the structural fallacy, affirming the consequent. Nothing has changed. Instead of having the cultural world-view of the time shape your conclusions, you take what you understand and in effect destroy the cultural bedrock of Biblical times. According to your practice, Sh’liach gets destroyed, not to mention grammatical laws, Priesthood functions, anthropomorphisms, OT patterns, types and antitypes, and semantics. And, to repeat what you said a while ago, do you really think God is unable to predict the future where someone like Jesus’ sinlessness is required, and still have the predictions turn out to be true, without interfering with Jesus’ free will?

     I prefer my correspondence with you to be public. I’ll stick to this forum, thanks. I do have a request, please: Keep your facetiousness to yourself. Keep your fallacious arguments to yourself. Review the terms of usage of this forum. For God’s sake…

     Jaco

121. on 05 Feb 2010 at 9:13 am121 robert

     Andrew wrote

     “Or is Robert here a fair representative of biblical Unitarianism?”

     Andrew
     there is nothing in black and white in the OT that proves the VC.
     The original of Matthew in Hebrew is sais by early church fathers to not of had a birth narrative.
     Plus if it was a VC than why doesnt any other writers mention it in the NT.

     34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

     this makes no sense because her first thought whould of been having a child with her husband to be.

     Mary was only spoke of a virgin in Luke before she conceived a child and never after.
     Isaiah 7 mentions a young woman not a virgin.

     plus the bible witnesses against it by showing Jesus was the Son of Joseph in the flesh.

     Its a lot stronger arguement than yours oneness theory.

     PS. we all share atleast one truth here but are different in many ways after that

122. on 05 Feb 2010 at 1:36 pm122 Mark C.

     Andrew,

     For the record, Robert is not representative of the majority of Unitarians. Most of us believe that Jesus was conceived by God through the power of the Holy Spirit, according to Luke 1.

     Luke 1:
     31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
     32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
     33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
     34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
     35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

123. on 05 Feb 2010 at 5:51 pm123 Andrew Patrick

     To Jaco,

     I am not able to correspond to such a huge lengthy post. I simply haven’t the time. It’s also hard to read because you’re not using sufficient white space.

     Additionally, you’ve descended into being insulting, you’re not fairly dealing with issues, and you’re regurgitating non-sensible answers to straight questions, i.e. Melchizadek.

     Heb 7:1-3 KJV
     (1) For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
     (2) To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
     (3) Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

     You tried to evade this by claiming that “without descent” would mean that he wasn’t from the tribe of Judah. OK – if that was all it said, that might be reasonable. But then you protest that “without father, without mother” means that we simply don’t know who his parents were! This is getting pretty weak, but even then, perhaps it might be allowable, except that Paul’s meaning is further clarified:

     …having neither beginning of days, nor end of life…”

     That can’t be equivocated away so easily, can it? Now, I’m sure you can find a canned answer posted somewhere if you look hard enough, and you can always claim that Hebrews has been “doctored” by those “Trinitarian bad guys” … but where does this excuse stop?

     * * * * * * *

     Finally, at least you did admit something that will save us all time. You’ve declared that the you cannot prove “Unitarianism” using the accepted Authorized Text.

     You wrote:

     The word was described as being divine. God’s word was in perfect harmony with what he intended it to accomplish. That word materialized when Yahweh created Jesus in Mary’s womb. “The word was God” is an inaccurate translation of what it originally said. Do some research on the original Greek. Mistranslation by trinitarians and convenient ambiguity in English made them scrub out what it originally said, creating their own Bible, one of which emerged in 1611.

     I suppose that I must beg you to show me what the Bible is really supposed to say. Surely, I must come learn at the feet of Jaco, who has been gifted with the Golden Tablets of the Original Unitarian Gospel from a divine agent appearing as an angel of light.

     [Yes, that's sarcastic. But what is your claim to inerrancy?]

     In hindsight, I wasn’t being slanderous when I was suggesting taking a marker, or a pen, or a penknife and just editing the scripture the way you like… it was prophetic!

     Ok, Andrew, please read the terms of this forum again. Enough is enough. You’re wasting my and everybody else’s time with your time- and space- consuming uncalled-for remarks. Stick to the arguments and keep the ad hominem attacks and misrepresentations out of this!

     You and Robert are both examples of this: it’s much easier to support a doctrine by claiming “mistranslation” rather than having to adjust yourself to the “difficult texts” that challenge what you might have wanted to believe.

     In Robert’s case, he denies the virgin Birth of Christ, because he wants to believe that Jesus was conceived by the seed of Joseph. For him, it’s a necessary plank in the Unitarian belief. He denies the record of both Testaments:

     Isa 7:14 KJV
     (14) Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

     So he claims that this is a “biased” translation, and that the confirmation of this translation in the New Testament was “inserted” by “people like me.” I suppose he figures that Mary’s physical lineage was inserted also, and thinks it would be a grand sign for a prophet to say “a young woman will conceive.”

     Where does this excuse stop?

     In your case [Jaco], you’ve admitted that it really does make a difference if you believe the AV text but you refuse to discuss the issue of the integrity of that same AV text, but you insist on arguing anyway, without an agreement as to the correct text.

     Thus, you’re not sincere. You’re not interested in resolution, but you continue to argue (and rather insultingly, at that.)

     To summarize:

     1) Even though I may also be guilty of posting long comments, I cannot keep up with the amount of text in your comments. It’s a time and resource issue.

     2) Additionally, you’ve said to me that you cannot prove Unitarianism from my bible, but you have no interest in proving that you have a bible that is more accurate.

     3) Therefore, I am unable to prove anything to you, and you are unable to prove anything to me. That’s called a stalemate. No one can prove anything any more. Congratulations. You’ve avoided a “loss.” Isn’t that the reason for moving into a stalemate?

     4) How do you intend to prove the Virgin birth to Robert, since he’s adopted a similar defense to believe whatever he wants to believe? You’ve put your doctrine first, and then the text.

     5) Hebrews 7:4 … having neither beginning of days, nor end of life …

     That doesn’t horrify Jews, but it does seem to terrify some people… I guess you can always claim “inserted text” because of “Trinitarian bad guys.”

     Jya ne,
     -Andrew

124. on 05 Feb 2010 at 7:33 pm124 robert

     Andrew

     Other Christian Translations of Isaiah 7:14

     1) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Revised Standard Version)

     2) Because you do, the Lord of His own accord will give you a sign; it is this: A young woman is with child, and she will give birth to a son and call him Immanuel. (Revised English Bible)

     3) Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: A young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and will call him Immanuel. (New English Bible)

     There are many more plus the OT in Hebrew.
     If you actually researched you will find that the Jews Never sanctioned the Books of Prophets to be translated to Greek only the 5 books of Moses.
     no one know who translated them to Greek but it wasnt the 70 and this is where whoever rewrote Matthew got his prophecy .

     Besides read Isaiah 7,8,9 to get what is spoken of, its wasnt Jesus.

     As i said VC or not ,its not important enough for any of the others NT writers to mention or any of the early church fathers of the 1st century.
     I dont need VC to believe GOD is the father of Jesus all i need is to know when he became the son of God because Paul states it up front and forward

     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:

     Acts 13:33
     God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

     As you see when Jesus acended to His God is when God begat Him

125. on 05 Feb 2010 at 8:13 pm125 Andrew Patrick

     Robert,

     You’ve admitted that you believe neither the Old or the New Testament with regards to the virgin birth of Christ.

     You’ve essentially said that the gospels of Matthew and Luke are fabrications, with the proof being that it conflicts with your understanding of these scriptures.

     There’s no point in me trying to explain the biological lineage of Christ or his legal right to the throne of Israel, or why “a young woman shall conceive” is an absurd wresting of the scriptures to deny the Christ.

     But you’ve called me a liar, and a hypocrite, and one that would edit the scriptures for my own purposes, so obviously you won’t listen to me anyway. You’re not going to listen to anyone except another Unitarian (which obviously, I am not.)

     So, until you’re more sensible,

     -Andrew

126. on 05 Feb 2010 at 8:22 pm126 Ray

     When Jesus said he was going unto the Father in John 14, he wasn’t simply refering to the day of his ascention recorded in Acts chapter one. He was refering to his death, at which time he would go unto the Father in heaven.

     So how can it be that he died and went unto the Father and while he was dead, yet he lived? It’s because he soul and spirit went unto the Father in heaven at the time that his body died. Unto the Father Jesus committed his spirit.

     Now from the grave is there any remembrance? From the grave is there any praise?

     If you would have been at the place where Jesus was burried, and you were there before his resurrection, you could have listened and if you would have heard him speak, it would have been his voice from heaven. It would not have been coming from earthly vocal cords beyond the stone which had been rolled to seal the place where he was laid.

     So from the grave is there any thing? What can we expect to find from the grave? Nothing! There is no hope in the grave, for hope belongs to the living.

     Should we be surprised to find scriptures that tell us so? I think not.

127. on 05 Feb 2010 at 8:34 pm127 robert

     On this subject and others i have all i need to base my faith on in the scriptures without people who twist the scriptures to read something different or people who claim something mysterious because tradition backs it.

     You ignore 100′s of clear scriptures to support the scripturs you twist.

     You’re not going to listen to anyone………….

     So, until you’re more sensible…..

128. on 05 Feb 2010 at 8:40 pm128 robert

     “When Jesus said he was going unto the Father in John 14, he wasn’t simply refering to the day of his ascention recorded in Acts chapter one. He was refering to his death, at which time he would go unto the Father in heaven.”

     Sorry Ray but that not correct

     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.

     This kinda may your statement false

129. on 05 Feb 2010 at 9:10 pm129 Ray

     Robert, when Jesus told Mary Magdalene not to touch him (outside the sepulchre right after his resurrection) because he had not yet ascended to the Father, wasn’t he saying that he had not yet ascended to the Father from the time of his resurrection?

     Prior to that time, ’till the time of his death on the cross, he had been with the Father in heaven. That’s where the real him, the soul and spirit, was, even though his body was in the tomb.

130. on 05 Feb 2010 at 9:13 pm130 robert

     No Ray
     I think He was saying He has not acended YET or in plain english never before

131. on 05 Feb 2010 at 10:02 pm131 Ray

     For those of you that consider the conversation Jesus had with Elijah and Moses from the mt. of transfiguration, as simply a vision,
     and therefore consider that it really didn’t happen as “Jesus speaking with Moses and Elijah”, what do you think would be their answer if you were to ask Moses or Elijah about such conversations?

     Would they say, “I categorically deny having such conversations.” or maybe ” I do not recall having any such conversations with Jesus at that time.”?

     I believe it really was Moses and Elijah that talked with Jesus at that time and that they would say that they did have that conversation with him at the time he was with them, and Peter, James, and John on the mt.

     Robert, why would Jesus tell Mary Magdalene to tell the disciples that he ascends unto the Father (see John 20:17) if he was not doing so, or about to do so?

     Also, why is it that he would not let Mary Magdalene touch him because he had not yet ascended (after the resurrection of his body) to the Father, and then later he tells Thomas to touch him, and even put his finger into his wounds?

     Doesn’t this indicate that he did ascend to the Father after his resurrection, and after having done so (this being I assume the first time he ascended to the Father after his bodily resurrection), then it was OK to be touched by his disciples?

     I believe Jesus went unto the Father as soon as he died on the cross. I say that he went unto the Father as he had told them in John 14:28.

132. on 05 Feb 2010 at 10:12 pm132 robert

     Ray
     Believe what you believe
     what i believe is Jesus acended to His Father,Our Father,His God,Our God for the FIRST TIME in any form when he acended after his resurrection because there are many ,many reference in all the NT writers to that fact

133. on 05 Feb 2010 at 10:36 pm133 Ray

     I believe Jesus went unto God at the time of his death on the cross, but I don’t necessarily call it an ascension. And it seems to me that he ascended and descended from heaven after his bodily resurrection, once after he told Mary Magdelene not to touch him, for he told her to tell the disciples that he ascends to the Father which may explain why it was OK if Thomas touch him at a later time.

134. on 05 Feb 2010 at 10:59 pm134 robert

     “And it seems to me that he ascended and descended from heaven after his bodily resurrection, once after he told Mary Magdelene not to touch him, for he told her to tell the disciples that he ascends to the Father which may explain why it was OK if Thomas touch him at a later time.”

     Ray
     you have this part right

135. on 06 Feb 2010 at 1:43 am135 Mark C.

     Guys, this thread was about the Response to the “Jesus Only” Critique. There are several threads about the state of the dead in which you can carry on this discussion, rather than derail this one, which is really long already.

     Ray, why do you not post these comments in the appropriate threads? Plus, if you insist on holding to your viewpoint, you really need to deal with the Scriptures that have been presented which contradict it.

     As for Moses and Elijah, is your hypothetical question about asking them supposed to prove anything? Why not believe what the Scriptures tell us?

136. on 06 Feb 2010 at 4:26 am136 Andrew Patrick

     re: Christ’s Ascension

     I know this is off topic from the original blog, but I don’t see anyone noticing this…

     Ray wrote:

     Also, why is it that he would not let Mary Magdalene touch him because he had not yet ascended (after the resurrection of his body) to the Father, and then later he tells Thomas to touch him, and even put his finger into his wounds?

     Doesn’t this indicate that he did ascend to the Father after his resurrection, and after having done so (this being I assume the first time he ascended to the Father after his bodily resurrection), then it was OK to be touched by his disciples?

     Take a look at the wave sheaf offering that was always offered on the first day of the week following the Passover in Leviticus 23:5-16. It is unleavened, and a lamb is offered without blemish, and the smoke ascends up to the LORD, and it is from this day that the 50 days of Pentecost are counted…

     So yes, Jesus did ascend between the “Mary, touch me not” and the “Thomas, handle me” in the gospels, before the visible ascension in Acts. The wave sheaf was offered in the daytime of the first day of the week.

     It was right there in Leviticus thousands of years before. God hides stuff like that, where it makes sense in hindsight, and it becomes clear later….

     Luk 24:25-27 KJV
     (25) Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
     (26) Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
     (27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

     … which, if I might remind this forum, is a very important premise of what I’ve been trying to say about the nature of God and Christ. This was in the law, and the psalms, and the prophets all along, starts to become evident with information from the gospels, and is finally revealed straight out by the time we finish in Revelation.

     Namely, that our God and Savior did walk among us, and he called himself Jesus. This may have been harder to see from up close, but it is so obvious in hindsight, if you read the Old Testament, or listen to the apostles, or simply believe the Revelation.

     -Andrew

137. on 06 Feb 2010 at 7:11 am137 Ray

     Mark, if you see me contradict scripture you should deal with me according to scripture. Use the scriptures as they are supposed to be used against anyone who is using it wrongly.

     I believe you may do this on this line of posts whenever you see anything wrong.

     The reason people deal with things as they appear instead of going to other lines of posting is because they tend to carry on a conversation.

     Why do you try to derail this?

     If you want us to get back to the beginning of this line of posts, then you may encourage that by getting back to it’s subject.

     Mark, do you believe Moses and Elijah would simply say they had no such conversation with Jesus as it was only a vision as the scriptures had said? Do you believe that would be their testimony?

     If you do know the scriptures and have a sword why don’t you use it?

138. on 06 Feb 2010 at 7:19 am138 Ray

     Andrew, thank you for that added information (post 136).

     I do not believe God came to this world in the flesh to die on a cross for the sins of the world, (though in some figurative sense it may be so) but rather, he sent Jesus his only begotten Son for that work of salvation.

     If Jesus would have failed in the work God gave him to do, I suspect God would have found another way. (like maybe coming himself in the flesh to do what Jesus did for us)

139. on 06 Feb 2010 at 12:50 pm139 robert

     Mark
     Sometimes things naturally migrate to other subjects as in the Six Reasons to Celebrate Hanukkah thread. You sanctioned Thomas over him giving his view on what Sean wrote which caused the discussion to become about Paul and the Law.
     We all have adressed other issues within a thread which would only be fair to others to adress their thought on it. Now sometimes it is done with an agenda which does need to be sanctioned.
     It is very hard to keep a subject on track because so many subjects are linked in the scriptures to help the understanding of the plan of God.
     all discussion are profitable as they develope into conversations that people can relate to

     Sean wrote in post 6 of “Six Reasons to Celebrate Hanukkah” thread

     “I’m pretty flexible with this stuff since I don’t believe keeping the Law is obligatory in light of my understanding of the New Covenant,”

140. on 06 Feb 2010 at 2:43 pm140 Mark C.

     Andrew,

     I agree with your take on Christ’s ascension (except for the last paragraph of course!)

     Ray,

     I have used the Scriptures in response to things you have said that contradicted, but you seem to just ignore it. The reason I suggested going to the other threads is that they have already laid out all the relevant Scriptures, and dealing with them there would avoid needless repetition.

     Robert,

     I only sanctioned Thomas and continued the discussion with him because there was no other thread on the subject of contradictions between John and the Synoptics. With the subject of the dead and whether they are in heaven, as I said to Ray, the other threads already lay out all the relevant Scriptures, so I was hoping he would deal with them there, especially since this thread has gotten so long.

     Still, I understand your point about following a conversation even if it veers off topic. I guess I just like things “neat and tidy” – and I can overdo it sometimes – just ask my wife!

141. on 06 Feb 2010 at 2:59 pm141 Andrew Patrick

     Dear Ray,

     Ray said (on the thread topic):

     If Jesus would have failed in the work God gave him to do, I suspect God would have found another way. (like maybe coming himself in the flesh to do what Jesus did for us)

     That’s interesting to hear.

     So I have a few sundry questions to ask along these lines (and I am curious to how you’d answer) – so, based on your statement:

     1) Wouldn’t there be the problem of broken prophecy already?

     2) Couldn’t God just send a created angel, like one of the elders around the throne? Why couldn’t one of them be crucified for the sins of the world?

     3) Is there any reason why he couldn’t come as a child? (Omnipotence question)

     4) And if God did step in as a pinch hitter, and walk the earth, do you think that he would tell everyone “I am YHWH, bow down before me” or is it worth considering that he might not make it plain until after he had died for their sins?

     5) Does God have the power to raise himself from the dead? In other words, do you believe he would he even be capable of serving as a replacement Messiah?

     6) If you are one of these people that thinks God knows everything that will ever happen, then if God had designated a purely human messiah, and saw that it was going to fail (because all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God, Rom 3:23) wouldn’t he then have “done the job himself” without ever making the mistake?

     7) And finally, and most importantly, if God did step in after a failed Messiah, and walked among us incognito, how would you expect him to reveal himself to us later, to tell us that this Messiah was really him?

     Thanks,
     -Andrew

142. on 06 Feb 2010 at 3:06 pm142 robert

     ” I guess I just like things “neat and tidy” – and I can overdo it sometimes – just ask my wife!”

     funny thing is my wife would tell you the same thing about me , hate to admit it but she knows me very well.

143. on 06 Feb 2010 at 3:51 pm143 robert

     Andrew
     Using your train of thought was Abraham, Moses, David and the prophets actually God. why should God gamble on these men to perfectly execute his plan. without foreknowledge than these men were a massive gamble.
     Did God come as the Jews who judged and convicted Jesus because if they failed then how could Jesus die to be our sacrafice.
     Did God come as the Romans for the destruction of the temple to fulfil Daniels prophecy
     Does God need to come as the antichrist and the false prophet to insure that his prophecies are 100% correct.
     Did God come as all these people?
     NO
     so why would he need to come as Jesus?
     HE DID NOT

     Almost all people understand God knew the end in the beginning and everything between to be able to give prophecies with 100% accuracy.
     Unless they feel God is limited as a man!!!!!

144. on 06 Feb 2010 at 9:32 pm144 Michael

     Andrew writes…The flaw with Sean’s argument is his claim that “Father” and “Son” must relate in the way he wants it to relate, and in no other fashion.

     Response- His argument is that your belief that God and Jesus are one in the same defies the meanings of the words father and son but is seemingly unaffected by the fact that his definition of these words create the same outcome.

     Andrew writes… Your answer to the “Jesus Gamble” question is…. “Because this time God sent His Son who was in the form of God but made in the likeness of men”. Isn’t that the same as “God himself became our Messiah?”

     Response- Because you and every denomination start with the belief that the Creator cannot procreate it necessitates one to reject the meaning of the words father and son when applied to God and Jesus and to create new definitions of what it means for God to be the Father of His Son.

     Now words not found in scripture are boldly used to explain the ones that are and the battle of created biblical lingo begins, Oneness, Trinity and agents are now some of the words used to explain what the God inspired writers were really trying communicate about God the Father and His Son.

     So does the fact that God sent His Son who was in the form of God but made in the likeness of men mean that “God himself became our Messiah?”….no, the Father is not the Son.

     Andrew writes… Are you saying that Jesus was created perfect?

     Response- Jesus lived a perfect life but could be tempted, suffer and die but when he was begotten by God this condition no longer existed and that is perfection.

     Andrew writes… If so, why would God allow all of non-perfect people to be made in the first place, if he could have done it right from the beginning?

     Response- The first Adam was of the same type as the second.

145. on 06 Feb 2010 at 10:39 pm145 Ray

     Andrew, I couldn’t help but notice that some of your questions in # 141 seem to break some of the arguments in support of the trinity doctrine.

146. on 07 Feb 2010 at 2:36 am146 Jaco

     Michael,

     I’ve noticed that you from time to time sporadically critique some of the statements made on this blog. That reminds me of a saying,

     “It’s much easier to rail against the beliefs of others if you don’t have to present a working model of your own.”

     Tell, us, Michael, what is your religious nomination? Are you by any chance a Christadelphian or a JW?

     Regards,

     Jaco

147. on 07 Feb 2010 at 3:32 am147 Andrew Patrick

     To Robert:

     As in the example of Jonah, God can be pretty influential with an unwilling prophet, and as in the condition of King Saul, God can even cause someone to prophesy. However, none of the attempts at counter-examples you gave, including Moses, Jews who crucified Christ, etc… required them to have a sinless condition and a perfect heart.

     In short, none of your counter examples make any sense.

     To Michael:

     You’re being so evasive, that I have no idea what you’re saying, but you should at least answer for what you’ve said:

     you said:
     

     Response- Because you and every denomination start with the belief…

     And what “denomination” is that, Michael? Please, tell me! I’d like to know.

     But in the meantime, please don’t accuse me of making up Lingo. From the beginning I’ve simply said, there is One God, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, Alpha and Omega, the Rock, our Savior, our Shepherd, the Word, and many other names, but when he walked among us in the flesh, his name was Jesus.

     And none of that is made-up lingo: that’s from scripture.

     To Ray:

     I was only asking some soft questions based upon your previous statement. I wasn’t specifically targeting Trinity folks, or anyone.

     But I was interested in your answers, because you admitted that it was possible for God to become flesh, in the role of Messiah, as Jesus. So I am interested in how you’d answer those questions in post 141.

148. on 07 Feb 2010 at 5:11 am148 Michael

     Andrew writes…what is your religious nomination?
     Response- There is no denomination or group except for one other person that I am aware of.

     Andrew writes…please don’t accuse me of making up Lingo. From the beginning I’ve simply said, there is One God, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, Alpha and Omega, the Rock, our Savior, our Shepherd, the Word, and many other names, but when he walked among us in the flesh, his name was Jesus.

     Response- The Unitarians use these same words but their definitions of them derive from as yours do ones understanding of what it means for God to be the Father of His Son Jesus and since you all believe that the Creator cannot procreate then lingo by necessity is developed.

     I also have a couple of questions, with so many denominations and their splinter groups with wide ranging thoughts on the relationship between God the Father and His Son Jesus how has there been universal agreement that God is not the ontological Father of Jesus?

     And do you find this agreement at all disconcerting?

149. on 07 Feb 2010 at 5:51 am149 Xavier

     Michael,

     …since you all believe that the Creator cannot procreate then lingo by necessity is developed.

     Generalisations and overstatements aside, unlike Muslims and Catholic-Protestant ‘Christendome’, I don’t just believe the virgin story regarding the how, why, when and where of Messiah’s birth, but what it actually says regarding his miraculous “procreation” [begetting] in the womb of a young Jewish girl [Mat 1.1, 18-20; Lu 1.30-35].

150. on 07 Feb 2010 at 7:22 am150 Michael

     Xavier writes…Generalizations and overstatements aside…

     Response- Is there a denomination that believes that God fathered a son from Himself?

     Xavier writes…I don’t just believe the virgin story regarding the how, why, when and where of Messiah’s birth, but what it actually says regarding his miraculous “procreation” [begetting] in the womb of a young Jewish girl.

     Response- You do not believe that Jesus shares the same category of being as his Father which is the natural result of fatherhood and you agree with a denomination that believes that the term “Son of God” when applied to Jesus translates as the “God’s ultimate human agent.”

     So why do you seem troubled to belong to the virtually unanimous opinion that the Creator cannot procreate resulting in the belief Jesus is not ontologically God’s Son?

151. on 07 Feb 2010 at 8:51 am151 Xavier

     Michael,

     I do not know quite what your getting at here, why do I believe God fathered a Son yet, do not believe that that same Son is the same God?

     The only thing troubling me at the moment is your reasoning friend.

152. on 07 Feb 2010 at 9:34 am152 Ray

     Andrew, it seems to me that some of your questions in # 141 certainly does cause one to discard some of the doctrines or ideas
     men may have about Jesus being God, something you did not intend to do but somehow stumbled unto it as if by fate.

     Are you becoming unitarian?

     The question you put forth as the most important was #7, about if God did walk the earth as the Messiah, how would he later reveal to us who he really is.

     I think that’s one of the problems with some trinitarian ideas.

     I read an article once about the day when “God walked the earth”.
     Though it was a creative writing it was also called prophetic. I didn’t at first care for it as it seemed to refer to Jesus as God. This idea was repeated in it. In the article it was said by a character in it that God himself came to us in his Son, that God walked among us as a man.

     That was the perspective of one of the disciples of Jesus named Andrew, one of the characters in the writing, or story.

     This was a creative writing and it did tell the gospel, but seemed to me to have been with a trinitarian perspective that I have not seen in any of the disciples of Jesus from my understanding of scripture.

     When Jesus walked according to the spirit of God, according to the truth of God, according to the inspired actions of God, by the indwelling of God, it might have been said by one of his disciples, I just don’t know.

     I don’t beleive God intended for the disciples of Jesus to have built a trinitarian doctrine around Jesus, and it seems doubtful to me if any of the 12 Jesus chose actually did that.

     I found the article interesting and it did cause me to wonder about these things.

153. on 07 Feb 2010 at 11:38 am153 Michael

     Xavier writes…why do I believe God fathered a Son yet; do not believe that that same Son is the same God?

     Response- Do you believe that Jesus is the Father?

154. on 07 Feb 2010 at 12:43 pm154 robert

     Andrew wrote

     “However, none of the attempts at counter-examples you gave, including Moses, Jews who crucified Christ, etc… required them to have a sinless condition and a perfect heart.”

     Andrew
     Not sure where you get sinless condition and a perfect heart because Jesus was sinless out of love for God only for 30 years of his life. Not sure if after receiving the Word in the Flesh at His baptism if he had a sinless condition and a perfect heart but my guess is Yes.
     Yes all of my examples are relevent under your theory but that fact seems to escape you because of your weak understanding of God’s power.

155. on 07 Feb 2010 at 12:50 pm155 robert

     Andrew
     Maybe Isaiah can help with that weak understanding

     Isaiah 46
     9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

156. on 07 Feb 2010 at 3:23 pm156 Doubting Thomas

     Michael (msg. 148)
     You wrote: -”There is no denomination or group except for one other person that I am aware of.”

     I am experiencing a similar situation except there is not only no denomination or group that shares all of my beliefs there is also no other person that I am aware of that shares all of my beliefs.

     This group here seems to be the closest thing to a group of people that share the same beliefs as I do even though we disagree on whether certain books and letters should have been included in the bible or not.

     I had never thought of Jesus being the ontological son of God. I know the Muslims reject the idea of Jesus being the son of God since they claim it is physically impossible for God to have children.

     I like to think of Jesus as being just as human as I am. That makes him the perfect judge of my human frailties and my sinful nature. I like to not only think of Jesus as my King but also my big brother if you will. This may be the wrong way to think of Jesus but I don’t think so….

157. on 07 Feb 2010 at 5:12 pm157 Michael

     Thomas writes… I had never thought of Jesus being the ontological Son of God.

     Response- For Jesus to be the ontological Son of God he must share the same category of being as his Father which Jesus clearly did not before his resurrection seeing that he was a human being and his Father was not.

     Thomas writes… I like to think of Jesus as being just as human as I am.

     Response- Although Jesus was subjected to temptation, the possibility of sin and death he was not just a human as we are because he was the second Adam. He was spiritually alive and did not need to be born again. These conditions did not exist for the risen Jesus begotten on the day of resurrection and sharing the same category of being as his Father.

158. on 07 Feb 2010 at 5:29 pm158 Doubting Thomas

     Michael
     I find your beliefs quite fascinating. Do these beliefs of yours have any other implications on us or our interpretation of scripture or expectations of the future, etc…

159. on 07 Feb 2010 at 5:31 pm159 robert

     Thomas
     As you i also can find no group that shares all of my belief but find all my beliefs shared amongst many groups. this group and one other shares the most but they both hold a lot of false beliefs by the standard of my beliefs. I have tried very hard to understand how they believe what they do by reading their articles but the scriptures always contradict their understanding or interpretation. I am a biblical literalist who sees what the scriptures clearly says and dont allow an interpretation to contradict it.
     Also i believe that the OT has everything we need for Salvation if we see the shadows that were casted by things to come.
     Example
     Jesus as the first to receive the Word in the Flesh being written in our hearts and mind.
     Jesus as the sacraficial lamb
     Jesus as the first fruit of the first fruits
     Jesus as the High Priest
     Jesus as the ultimate King over his brothers

     all the things above replaced the Law for righteousness but not the LAW OF GOD.

     plus something Adam was a shadow of.
     Jesus as the first born of God at the begotten of the dead which i feel is higher form a human being above the angels.

     Thomas there is nothing wrong with your method to find the truth because it was said to prove by many writers of the NT what the truth is and all they had to do that with was the LAW and Prophets at the time they were told to do this. we have so much more to do this with than the first who received the Good News of the Promise To Abraham.
     Now they had the advantage of Knowing who was being spoke to and what was being spoke of because they heard what was preached to them where we only have letters addresing issues of that time.
     I accept Paul because i understand now who was being addressed and what was being addressed and understand why Paul was chose to address the issues of the time. He knew the difference between the Law Of God,Mosaic laws( written) and the oral laws which was called also the law of Moses. His whole life was studying all 3 and was considered an authority on all 3. this was a necessity when the gentiles received the Gospel because He could explain the Difference of all 3 to the gentiles when the Jews thought the laws of Judah(oral law) should apply to the gentiles or the Laws of Israel which provided for being an Israelite as a citizen and to explain the Laws of God which Pauls states are HOLY was for all mankind who wanted to be a child of God.
     Just as they are many who didnt understand Paul role then , they are many more today who dont understand one thing about who Paul was or why he was chosen.

     Paul was my biggest red flag but now is my biggest understanding of the Promise to Abraham

160. on 07 Feb 2010 at 6:00 pm160 Doubting Thomas

     Robert
     You said, -”Jesus as the first born of God at the begotten of the dead which I feel is higher form of human being above the angels.”-

     I believe that Jesus is now above the angels but there is one thing that always puzzled me and that was Jesus’ statement that, “No man born of a woman is greater than John the Baptist but even the least in heaven is greater than he.”-

     Since Jesus was born of a woman, Is he saying that John the Baptist is greater than he was? It’s just one of those things in the bible I have a hard time making any sense of.

     You also said, -”Paul was my biggest red flag but now is my biggest understanding of the Promise to Abraham.”-

     At the beginning of Galations Paul says he wasn’t appointed an Apostle by mere men but by God himself. I don’t understand why the other Apostles did not appoint him an Apostle if he were indeed an Apostle…

     I also don’t understand why the synoptics that were written long after the letters of Paul don’t mention anything about these mystic revelations that Paul was having saying that the law no longer applied. If this belief that the law no longer applied was widespread than certainly it would be found in the synoptics, or 1st. Peter, or James or even Acts. Acts actually says that a limited dietary law (council of Jerusalem – Law of Noah) applied to the Gentiles.

     The other big red flag for me is that Peter and the Apostles were accepted as Jews and could go into the temple every Sabbath and debate the other sects as to whether Jesus was the Messiah or not and “The Way” as this Jewish sect was called was accepted in the temple and the synogoges for about 70 years after Pentecost.

     Yet Paul’s arrival in the holy city of Jerusalem caused huge riots and resulted in 40 men swearing an oath of death not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul. If Paul’s teachings about the law were similar to Peter and the Apostles why were they treated so differently. Why did the Jews who were zealous for the law accept Peter and the Apostles and their followers but fiercely oppose and reject Paul (wanting to kill him).

161. on 07 Feb 2010 at 6:43 pm161 robert

     “Since Jesus was born of a woman, Is he saying that John the Baptist is greater than he was? It’s just one of those things in the bible I have a hard time making any sense of.”

     Thomas
     I think the context was a prophet and was just a statement to show John’s authority to be a prophet was from God

     “At the beginning of Galations Paul says he wasn’t appointed an Apostle by mere men but by God himself. I don’t understand why the other Apostles did not appoint him an Apostle if he were indeed an Apostle…”

     I think that this is explaining that the choice was Gods who was an apostle. was the choice really Jesus’ when they were chose or was he following Gods command. the fact is He was accepted by the others.

     “Yet Paul’s arrival in the holy city of Jerusalem caused huge riots and resulted in 40 men swearing an oath of death not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul. If Paul’s teachings about the law were similar to Peter and the Apostles why were they treated so differently. Why did the Jews who were zealous for the law accept Peter and the Apostles and their followers but fiercely oppose and reject Paul (wanting to kill him).”

     Paul was a highly respected man amongst the Pharisees and the Cheif priest and was considered a traitor because he didnt force the oral laws(to be a jew) or the Mosaic laws(to be an Iraelite) on the gentiles and taught the Law of God(10 commandments) were meant for all mankind. When God gave guidelines for humanity after the flood to Noah they were for all humanity just as the 10 commandments but Mosaic and Circumcision were giving to Israel and who joined themself to Israel to be a citizen of Israel. why should gentiles have to become a jew or Israelite
     to received the Holy spirit
     The others did not have the learning to be considered a threat to the Pharisees or a traitor.
     Everyone of the apostles were chosen for a speciel puspose even Judas

162. on 07 Feb 2010 at 6:50 pm162 Doubting Thomas

     Robert
     Now I am starting to catch on. What you are saying makes a lot of sense and does elliminate some of my doubts. But why do the synoptics (which were written after the letters of Paul) and 1st. Peter and James not mention anything about the law not applying anymore.

163. on 07 Feb 2010 at 6:58 pm163 robert

     Maybe because there wasnt that issue being addressed in a letter , maybe they adressed this in their preaching which we have no record of because it was not written.
     I know you understand how pagan religions were a problem to all the apostles but not all wrote about it. Somethings were adressed in person. Paul had a wider area to cover and couldnt address all things in person so he had to write the church leaders so they could address it in person but we have nothing showing them addressing it in person but that dont mean they didnt.

164. on 07 Feb 2010 at 7:22 pm164 Doubting Thomas

     Robert
     That does make sense. One final red flag in Acts 21:17-25 it tells the story about how James and the elders in Jerusalem forced Paul to shave his head along with others and go into the temple for so many days and not to utter a word to anyone to show that the things they heard about him were not true at that he himself follows the law (in this case the law of repentance).

     What was he repenting for? And why at the end in verse 25 did they have to send letters out to the Gentiles Paul had converted telling them that there were certain laws that they must follow (the decision at the council of Jerusalem – Law of Noah)?

165. on 07 Feb 2010 at 7:29 pm165 Andrew Patrick

     This is drifting off the “Oneness” thread pretty fast.

     Doubting Thomas wrote:

     Andrew, it seems to me that some of your questions in # 141 certainly does cause one to discard some of the doctrines or ideas
     men may have about Jesus being God, something you did not intend to do but somehow stumbled unto it as if by fate.

     Are you becoming unitarian?

     No, I am asking Ray a set of questions based upon what he previously stated that he believed. This is a common style of discussion where you consider someone’s beliefs for the sake of argument, and follow them to their logical conclusion.

     I honestly wouldn’t understand why anyone would be expected me to be persuaded by the argument style on this board. No one has been trying to “win” me, and especially recently considering one person denies the virgin birth, another admits he cannot prove Unitarian doctrine with a “1611 bible,” and others still have been insulting.

     To Michael - I didn’t ask you for your denomination. I was pointing out that it certainly seemed that you were blanketing me with a denomination label.

     Michael – since this is a “Oneness” thread, how about answering a question from the “Oneness” representative here?

     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.

     Question one: Since it sounds like you’re saying that Jesus was created from nothing or at least “once was not” then when did Satan fall from heaven like lightning?

     a) Before Mary conceived by the holy spirit
     b) After Mary conceived by the holy spirit
     c) Other (explain)

     Question two: Consider the following passage…

     Joh 8:56-59 KJV
     (56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
     (57) Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
     (58) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
     (59) Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

     And concerning Abraham, he lived and died
     a) before Mary conceived by the holy spirit
     b) after Mary conceived by the holy spirit
     c) other (explain)

     Question three: Consider this passage from John,

     Joh 1:14-15 KJV
     (14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
     (15) John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

     Elizabeth conceived and gave birth to John. Concerning John, he was conceived:
     a) before Mary conceived by the holy spirit
     b) after Mary conceived by the holy spirit
     c) other (explain)

     Joh 1:1-3 KJV
     (1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
     (2) The same was in the beginning with God.
     (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

     Question four: The beginning was
     a) before Mary conceived by the holy spirit
     b) after Mary conceived by the holy spirit
     c) other (explain)

     I’ve outlined these questions very simply, and I think the scriptures allow the meaning to speak for themselves.

     Thanks,
     -Andrew

166. on 07 Feb 2010 at 7:46 pm166 Doubting Thomas

     Andrew Patrick
     I did not write that to you. Ray wrote that to you…

167. on 07 Feb 2010 at 7:51 pm167 robert

     Thomas
     this is speaking of an acussation that Paul was teaching Jews to forsake their heritage which he never did. to show that he was still proud of being an Israelite and he still believed the Mosaic laws was for Jews. he showed them that he still obeyed the laws of his heritage that The Mosaic law was giving to the Children of Israel. Just as we show love for our country.
     the Mosaic law was giving to be an Israelite which Paul By doing this shows he is still proud to be.
     Paul loved his country and wasnt a traitor

168. on 07 Feb 2010 at 8:12 pm168 Doubting Thomas

     Robert
     I can’t believe how easily you are explaining away all my doubts that I have spent years struggling with. There is still the question of, Why did they have to send out letters to the Gentiles Paul had converted telling them there were still laws that they had to follow?

169. on 07 Feb 2010 at 8:58 pm169 robert

     19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

     Thomas
     i dont find James and the elders having a problem with what Paul taught the gentiles.
     I have no idea why they sent out a writting if that is what that means that they sent it out to Pauls converts or to their own converts

     25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication

170. on 07 Feb 2010 at 9:19 pm170 Doubting Thomas

     Robert
     That’s also what my friend Tim said. I guess I might be reading it wrong. My translation ESV is a little different than yours. It says, “But concerning the Gentiles who have believed we wrote having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.”

     Which is of course the exact same wording used in the decision at the council of Jerusalem. I had thought they were referring to the Gentiles that Paul had converted.

     I noticed that you have no problem with the part that says look at the thousands of Jews there are which believe (in Jesus), and they are all zealous for the law.

     That part always led me to believe that they were chastising Paul for teaching that the law no longer applied.

171. on 07 Feb 2010 at 9:20 pm171 robert

     25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication

     Thomas
     we know that the gentiles were also taught the 10 commandments by the apostles because there is no mention in this of murder, stealing or other morals taught by the Law Of God. the question was should the converts be bound by Mosaic law which the answer from this is no. This shows there was no conterversy surrounding the Morals of God.
     To be sure all humanity was held by the commands God gave Noah even the Jews but the Israelites which includes the jews were also still bound by Mosaic law and God’s spoken Commands.
     we know that from Paul in other areas of writings and from several others except what Jesus replaced of the Mosaic law which was impossible to be done as prescribed by Mosaic law like the Sin sacrafice to the High priest which Jesus is now the only way to obtain righteousness as taught by Paul and many others

172. on 07 Feb 2010 at 9:24 pm172 Xavier

     Michael,

     The Bible says that YHWH is “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” [Romans 15:6 : 2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3; John 20:17; Eph 1:17; Rev 1:6].

173. on 07 Feb 2010 at 9:27 pm173 robert

     “I noticed that you have no problem with the part that says look at the thousands of Jews there are which believe (in Jesus), and they are all zealous for the law.”

     Many jews did have a problem with Paul because they felt God was only reachable through them and Mosaic law plus Paul was forsaking the oral laws because of his greater understanding that they really were not Giving by God but were just the traditions and custom of men

174. on 07 Feb 2010 at 9:29 pm174 Mark C.

     Thomas,

     Before you make up your mind, I highly recommend you read the New Covenant Commandments thread, to get another side of the story:

     http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/05/29/new-covenant-commandments/

     I also recommend The New Covenant, Parts 1 and 2:
     http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/10/11/the-new-covenant-part-1/
     http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/10/12/the-new-covenant-part-2/

175. on 07 Feb 2010 at 9:35 pm175 robert

     Xavier
     And how many times is it spoken that GOD is the God and the Father of all that love him. Jesus himself says that God is our Father and Our God.
     I believe Michael never says he wasnt just states when He really was born of God.
     God will someday be my real Father Too

176. on 07 Feb 2010 at 9:55 pm176 Doubting Thomas

     Thanks Mark. I always like to look at both sides before making any major decision. My eyes are starting to bother me and it is getting kind of late and I have to get up early so I will look at those threads tommorow.

177. on 07 Feb 2010 at 10:06 pm177 Michael

     Xavier writes…The Bible says that YHWH is “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”

     Response- Yet if you are a Biblical Unitarian you must come up with another definition of God as the Father of Jesus since BU’s do not believe that Jesus shares the same ontological category of being as his Father before and after the resurrection and God is not a human being.

     The fact that every denomination including your own believes that God is not the ontological Father of Jesus should be a clue; everyone debates endlessly on the myriad of topics that separate us and ignore the one where there is complete agreement.

178. on 07 Feb 2010 at 11:01 pm178 Mark C.

     Response- Yet if you are a Biblical Unitarian you must come up with another definition of God as the Father of Jesus since BU’s do not believe that Jesus shares the same ontological category of being as his Father before and after the resurrection and God is not a human being.

     Not all Biblical Unitarians believe that.

179. on 07 Feb 2010 at 11:17 pm179 robert

     Well
     i do believe Jesus shares the same ontological category of being As his Father Before when he shared the complete humanity of Joseph and After the spiritual nature of his Father who is also his God.
     And i believe God is not a Human.
     So i guess i am a BU who does believe these things

180. on 08 Feb 2010 at 12:30 am180 Michael

     Mark and Robert….How can you believe (if you do) that Jesus shares the same ontological category of being as God his Father if you hold to the BU belief that Jesus is a human being after the resurrection?

181. on 08 Feb 2010 at 1:02 am181 Ray

     Andrew, in John 8:56, did Jesus say that he saw Abraham’s day or did he say that Abraham saw Jesus’ day?

     It seems rather clear that Jesus said that Abraham saw his (Jesus’)
     day, not the other way around.

     Previously Abraham was a sojourner in a land of promise looking for something permanent in a temporary land, looking forward to the day of Christ.

     Nowhere do I see in John chapter 8 that Jesus tells them that he saw Abraham’s day, though I do believe that he did. I believe he saw it from heaven. I suppose he might have seen it even before Abraham was born.

     They picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus left the temple, walking through the crowd, and on past them.

     Some time passes between this happening and another time when they take up rocks to stone him. I suppose they all had plenty to talk about concerning he said to them which came to their minds through
     ears that did not hear, for they were carnal men.

     Jesus asked them why they had determined to stone him in John 10:32, asking them for what work it was that he had done. They answered that he being a man represented himself as God. (John 10:33) Jesus set them straight, telling them again who he was, as he had always said, that he is the Son of God. (John 10:36)

     Did Jesus say to them that he was God? My answer to that question is no, he told them he is the Son of God, that God is his Father, (see John 5:18) but men hear what they want to hear sometimes and sometimes men will do what they determine to do
     by wrong reasonings.

182. on 08 Feb 2010 at 1:13 am182 Mark C.

     Mark and Robert….How can you believe (if you do) that Jesus shares the same ontological category of being as God his Father if you hold to the BU belief that Jesus is a human being after the resurrection?

     The Bible says nothing about “ontological categories” and since the term is rather vague I prefer to use the terminology that the Bible uses. It says Jesus is God’s Son by way of His Holy Spirit, according to Luke 1. He is also called the son of man, and was born of Mary, a human. He is Son of God AND Son of Man. Since the resurrection he is a human being, but an exalted human being with characteristics beyond what mortal men have. (Robert will disagree, but this is how I and most BU’s see it.)

183. on 08 Feb 2010 at 1:22 am183 Andrew Patrick

     Re: Completely Off Topic tangent of the Law of Moses

     
     Paul did not teach that Jews were bound under the law of Moses!

     robert wrote:

     Thomas
     this is speaking of an acussation that Paul was teaching Jews to forsake their heritage which he never did. to show that he was still proud of being an Israelite and he still believed the Mosaic laws was for Jews. he showed them that he still obeyed the laws of his heritage that The Mosaic law was giving to the Children of Israel. Just as we show love for our country.
     the Mosaic law was giving to be an Israelite which Paul By doing this shows he is still proud to be.
     Paul loved his country and wasnt a traitor

     robert also wrote:

     Thomas
     we know that the gentiles were also taught the 10 commandments by the apostles because there is no mention in this of murder, stealing or other morals taught by the Law Of God.

     Robert – you’ve already stated that you believe the Bible was “edited” by “people like me” so this is mainly for Thomas.

     Thomas – you might want to check what the Bible says first, before jumping to any conclusions.

     Rom 2:28-29 KJV
     (28) For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
     (29) But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

     Rom 3:1-2 KJV
     (1) What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
     (2) Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

     The entire Law of Moses rested on this question of the circumcision. It stands or falls together. Paul did not teach Jew or Gentile that they needed to obey the Ten Commandments! Remember that fourth commandment, Honor the Sabbath Day, and keep it holy? Does Paul teach anyone to keep the Sabbath?

     Rom 14:5-6 KJV
     (5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
     (6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

     Col 2:16-17 KJV
     (16) Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
     (17) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

     Does Paul say there is any difference between Jew or Greek?

     Rom 10:12-13 KJV
     (12) For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
     (13) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

     Paul does not say that the Jew needs to keep the Law of Moses!

     Gal 3:28-29 KJV
     (28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
     (29) And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

     The Jew is not Abraham’s seed by blood – the Jew is Abraham’s seed if he be in Christ!

     Col 3:11 KJV
     (11) Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

     Also listen to Peter, specifically concerning the question of the circumcision and the Law of Moses!

     Act 15:5-11 KJV
     (5) But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
     (6) And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
     (7) And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
     (8) And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
     (9) And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
     (10) Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
     (11) But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

     Back to Paul

     Col 2:8-14 KJV
     (8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
     (9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
     (10) And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
     (11) In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
     (12) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
     (13) And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
     (14) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

     Conclusion

     If it seems strange that I’m telling you that we are not under the Law of Moses, and that we are not under the Ten Commandments, because you think that Commandment Six of the Law of Moses is the only law against murder, then you don’t understand the Law.

     If you think you do need to keep the Law of Moses, you need to learn all of the law. That includes the animal sacrifices, the Sabbaths, the annual holy days, clean and unclean meats… all of it.

     Heb 9:28 KJV
     (28) So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

     What did Jesus say was the greatest commandment of the law? And what was the second like unto it? These existed always, before the beginning of the world, before the flood, and before Mount Sinai, before Cavalry, and until the end of the world.

     Heb 10:1 KJV
     (1) For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

     Joh 4:21-24 KJV
     (21) Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
     (22) Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
     (23) But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
     (24) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

     Concerning the Jews:

     2Co 3:14-16 KJV
     (14) But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
     (15) But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
     (16) Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

     The Old Covenant is Broken!

     Zec 11:10 KJV
     (10) And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.

     Zec 11:13-14 KJV
     (13) And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
     (14) Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

     Heb 8:10-13 KJV
     (10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
     (11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
     (12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
     (13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

     I think that’s pretty substantial evidence that Paul was not teaching that Jews needed to keep the Law of Moses or the Ten Commandments (that is, if you believe the Bible… Robert says it has been edited by people like me.)

     -Andrew

184. on 08 Feb 2010 at 1:27 am184 Andrew Patrick

     Doubting Thomas wrote:

     Andrew Patrick
     I did not write that to you. Ray wrote that to you…

     Sorry, Thomas. Ray’s answer was so evasive that I assumed someone else wrote it as a comment without trying to answer.

     So, Ray… No, I’m not leaning Unitarian. Do you still want to take a shot at the questions in post 141? They are all asked based on taking your own statements as a given…

     -Andrew

185. on 08 Feb 2010 at 7:25 am185 Jaco

     Additionally, you’ve descended into being insulting, you’re not fairly dealing with issues, and you’re regurgitating non-sensible answers to straight questions, i.e. Melchizadek.

     No, you see, you were the one who included flippant expressions such as *Ahem,* being “sick and tired of ” this or that argument, of one argument being “dumb,”of accusing me of being “revisionist,” misrepresenting my arguments, putting words in my mouth, “poisoning the well” by predicting how I would answer, even calling my answers “regurgitating”…and you’re accusing me of being insulting? You have violated the terms of use on this forum, and you dare call me insulting? In the mean time not one of the fallacious arguments, misrepresentations, inadequate analogies or demonstrably erroneous Scriptural interpretations I highlighted in your arguments did you sufficiently defend. Instead, you called them “dumb,” “non-sensible,” “regurgitating”…who do you think you are? Watch your demeanor, or at least pretend to be the humble Christian brother you initially were when you came onto this forum.

     You tried to evade this by claiming that “without descent” would mean that he wasn’t from the tribe of Judah. OK – if that was all it said, that might be reasonable. But then you protest that “without father, without mother” means that we simply don’t know who his parents were! This is getting pretty weak, but even then, perhaps it might be allowable, except that Paul’s meaning is further clarified:

     …having neither beginning of days, nor end of life…”

     No, the “without descent” was not due to his non-relatedness with Judah. I said:

     The very fact that Jesus is to be a priest has to make him a priest of Someone else. Since Melchizedek had no genealogy, no children, no age, nor death recorded, in that way was he “fatherless, motherless, of unknown genealogy [agenealogitos], neither beginning of days, nor of having an end of life, and taking an exact image [aphwmoiwmenos] to the son of God.” He was not the son of God, whom he took the image of.

     Since Jesus is to be priest according to the manner of Melchizedek we have to investigate what this manner was. We’ll also have to see in what way was he without genealogy, fatherless, motherless, of no beginning nor end of life, etc. Genesis 14 tells us in what way. When was Melchizedek born? Who were his parents? When did he die? Nothing is provided. In that way Jesus would be priest. In what way did Jesus not have beginning of days? Jesus originated from God Who from the indefinite past intended to have His word actualize in Jesus (Mic. 5:2). Jesus also received immortality (Joh. 5:26, Ro. 6:9). Since Jesus proceeded from God and has immortality with no successors, in that way he has neither beginning of days, nor end of life.

     BUT, that does not make Melchizedek Jesus or God. Firstly, as I pointed out, a priest has to be appointed by God in order to function as such. This is the case, not only regarding the type or shadow, but also in the case of the antitype or reality:

     Hebrews 5:4-6 “Also, a man takes this honor, not of his own accord, but only when he is called by God, just as Aaron also was. So too the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but by Him who spoke with reference to him: ‘You are my son; I, today, I have become your father.’ Just as he says also in another place: ‘You are a priest forever according to the manner of Melchizedek.’”

     Then, the text in Hebrews in its Greek form states it clearly in another way. In Heb. 7:15: “And more extra still it is evident, since according to the likeness of Melchizedek arises another priest.” Here the word translated “another” is heteros in Greek. Actually, the nuance of this word is better expressed in English as “different.” “Another” should rather be translated from allos, not heteros. This shows the distinctness of Jesus from Melchizedek while following a manner of Melchizedek, namely, his priesthood.

     Also, Jesus received his priesthood from God. If Jesus were Melchizedek, he would have been a priest since before his birth, in fact, eternally. But, no, the Bible says that this office of priesthood has been given Jesus.

     Heb. 5:9, 10: “…and after he had been made perfect he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, because he has been specifically called by God a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek.”

     Heb. 6:20: “…where a forerunner has entered in our behalf, Jesus, who has become a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek for ever.”

     Heb. 7:15, 16 “And it is still more abundantly clear that with a similarity to Melchizedek there arises another priest, who has become such…”

     Heb. 7:22 “…to that extent also Jesus has become the one given in pledge of a better covenant.”

     Heb. 8:6 “But now Jesus has obtained a more excellent public service, so that he is also the mediator of a correspondingly better covenant, which has been legally established upon better promises.”

     Now, these texts irrefutably proves Jesus’ distinctness from Melchizedek and the One who appointed them, God Almighty. Jesus’ priesthood had a beginning after the time of Melchizedek’s public service.

     Also, the context in which Yahweh God expressed his promise to give Jesus a priesthood in the manner of Melchizedek’s, is after the text of Ps. 110:1:

     “Adonai (Yahweh) said to adoni (my Lord), sit on my right hand…”

     Jesus’ and Yahweh’s inequality and ontological distinctness is
     irrefutably indicated here.

     In light of all these do we need to understand the section in Heb. 7. Fortunately translational bias is not that much of an issue in this regard. Only by ignoring the overwhelmingly dominant background determinants and Hebrew bedrock concepts can one arrive at an isolated and unsupported Melchizedek=Jesus=Yahweh, with no Scriptural grounds whatsoever.

     That can’t be equivocated away so easily, can it? Now, I’m sure you can find a canned answer posted somewhere if you look hard enough, and you can always claim that Hebrews has been “doctored” by those “Trinitarian bad guys” … but where does this excuse stop?

     Here you do it again…STOP “poisoning the well.” STOP telling me what I’ll say. STOP attacking the argument. STICK to arguing your case.

     Finally, at least you did admit something that will save us all time. You’ve declared that the you cannot prove “Unitarianism” using the accepted Authorized Text.

     No, Unitarianism can be proved by much of the Authorized Text – where in fact it has not been altered in doctrinally significant areas. As these areas have been demonstrated to be spurious, better and more authentic mss. confirm the Unitarian stance perfectly.

     I suppose that I must beg you to show me what the Bible is really supposed to say. Surely, I must come learn at the feet of Jaco, who has been gifted with the Golden Tablets of the Original Unitarian Gospel from a divine agent appearing as an angel of light.
     [Yes, that’s sarcastic. But what is your claim to inerrancy?]

     Patrick, you’ve gone too far with your unchristian sarcasm. Instead of arguing your case, you’re attacking me personally. I will not stand for it.

     In hindsight, I wasn’t being slanderous when I was suggesting taking a marker, or a pen, or a penknife and just editing the scripture the way you like… it was prophetic!

     Well, you’r cherry picking what is Scripturally acceptable and what is not…not me.

     You and Robert are both examples of this: it’s much easier to support a doctrine by claiming “mistranslation” rather than having to adjust yourself to the “difficult texts” that challenge what you might have wanted to believe.

     Fallacy: Guilt by association. ARGUE THE CASE! The areas where the Authorised Text has been shown to be inaccurate and spurious are valid objections to those specific renderings. It has nothing to do with inerrancy. Consulting earlier and more authentic texts proves the Authorised Text’s inferiority. Your associating me with Robert on irrelevant grounds is fallacious and preposterous. I won’t even bother to defend your fallacy.

     In your case [Jaco], you’ve admitted that it really does make a difference if you believe the AV text but you refuse to discuss the issue of the integrity of that same AV text, but you insist on arguing anyway, without an agreement as to the correct text.

     I’m not going to do your homework, Patrick. I showed you where the 1 Tim. 3:16 text has been corrupted. You have to prove that it hasn’t, and provide the manuscript evidence for it. Nor am I going to give you Koine Greek lessons. Do your own homework and present the evidence where any text has “ho theos” as the subject of John 1:1c.

     Thus, you’re not sincere. You’re not interested in resolution, but you continue to argue (and rather insultingly, at that.)

     I’ve nowhere been insulting. You have. DON’T YOU BE THE JUDGE OF MY SINCERITY. Your demeanor and dishonest course have been highlighted time and time again. I would not have been that comfortable with all the arguments against me if I were you. Instead of arguing the case, you attacked my arguments, made uncalled-for insulting and sarcastic remarks, and proceeded from fallacious points all the time. And you dare call me insincere?

     1) Even though I may also be guilty of posting long comments, I cannot keep up with the amount of text in your comments. It’s a time and resource issue.

     Well, my arguments still stand, and yours left unproved and exposed as demonstrably false.

     2) Additionally, you’ve said to me that you cannot prove Unitarianism from my bible, but you have no interest in proving that you have a bible that is more accurate.

     I never said that (straw man fallacy). There are many superior translations based on much more authentic mss. evidence than the Textus Receptus. If you want to argue the case for the AV, we can do it on another thread. In the meantime the demonstrably better renderings still refute your position.

     3) Therefore, I am unable to prove anything to you, and you are unable to prove anything to me. That’s called a stalemate. No one can prove anything any more. Congratulations. You’ve avoided a “loss.” Isn’t that the reason for moving into a stalemate?

     No, wrong again. Let’s use a neutral translation, or, let’s use the Greek text, and then we proceed from there. My arguments still stand, and yours exposed. This is not stalemate. Unless you can maneuver your way logically out of this position, it’s checkmate for you.

     4) How do you intend to prove the Virgin birth to Robert, since he’s adopted a similar defense to believe whatever he wants to believe? You’ve put your doctrine first, and then the text.

     Another fallacious attempt…

     5) Hebrews 7:4 … having neither beginning of days, nor end of life …

     I gave you the answer.

     That doesn’t horrify Jews, but it does seem to terrify some people… I guess you can always claim “inserted text” because of “Trinitarian bad guys.”

     No, it does horrify the Jews, whose Hebrew conceptual bedrock you’ve been conveniently ignoring and demonstrably counts conclusively against your arguments. Judging by your conduct and demeanor, you display signs of being terrified. And, yet again, you fallaciously argue a case here I never made…

     Jya ne,

     What’s this supposed to mean? Please translate.

     My challenge to you is to use Codex Vaticanus or Codex Alexandrinus (Hebrews included) as the Greek text to argue your case. If those codices are too young to your taste, we can go back to the Chester-Beatty renderings dating from 200 C.E (save Hebrews). Your agreeing to this will be much appreciated, not only by myself, but also the other posters here. Your declining the challenge will indicate your calling it quits. In the meantime my arguments stand against what’s left for you to prove.

     Disappointed in you, but still respectful of you,

     Jaco

     P.S. If length is such an issue to you, why do you still post lengthy replies to the other guys’ posts? And that even off topic?

186. on 08 Feb 2010 at 7:25 am186 Jaco

     Andrew,

     Additionally, you’ve descended into being insulting, you’re not fairly dealing with issues, and you’re regurgitating non-sensible answers to straight questions, i.e. Melchizadek.

     No, you see, you were the one who included flippant expressions such as *Ahem,* being “sick and tired of ” this or that argument, of one argument being “dumb,”of accusing me of being “revisionist,” misrepresenting my arguments, putting words in my mouth, “poisoning the well” by predicting how I would answer, even calling my answers “regurgitating”…and you’re accusing me of being insulting? You have violated the terms of use on this forum, and you dare call me insulting? In the mean time not one of the fallacious arguments, misrepresentations, inadequate analogies or demonstrably erroneous Scriptural interpretations I highlighted in your arguments did you sufficiently defend. Instead, you called them “dumb,” “non-sensible,” “regurgitating”…who do you think you are? Watch your demeanor, or at least pretend to be the humble Christian brother you initially were when you came onto this forum.

     You tried to evade this by claiming that “without descent” would mean that he wasn’t from the tribe of Judah. OK – if that was all it said, that might be reasonable. But then you protest that “without father, without mother” means that we simply don’t know who his parents were! This is getting pretty weak, but even then, perhaps it might be allowable, except that Paul’s meaning is further clarified:

     …having neither beginning of days, nor end of life…”

     No, the “without descent” was not due to his non-relatedness with Judah. I said:

     The very fact that Jesus is to be a priest has to make him a priest of Someone else. Since Melchizedek had no genealogy, no children, no age, nor death recorded, in that way was he “fatherless, motherless, of unknown genealogy [agenealogitos], neither beginning of days, nor of having an end of life, and taking an exact image [aphwmoiwmenos] to the son of God.” He was not the son of God, whom he took the image of.

     Since Jesus is to be priest according to the manner of Melchizedek we have to investigate what this manner was. We’ll also have to see in what way was he without genealogy, fatherless, motherless, of no beginning nor end of life, etc. Genesis 14 tells us in what way. When was Melchizedek born? Who were his parents? When did he die? Nothing is provided. In that way Jesus would be priest. In what way did Jesus not have beginning of days? Jesus originated from God Who from the indefinite past intended to have His word actualize in Jesus (Mic. 5:2). Jesus also received immortality (Joh. 5:26, Ro. 6:9). Since Jesus proceeded from God and has immortality with no successors, in that way he has neither beginning of days, nor end of life.

     BUT, that does not make Melchizedek Jesus or God. Firstly, as I pointed out, a priest has to be appointed by God in order to function as such. This is the case, not only regarding the type or shadow, but also in the case of the antitype or reality:

     Hebrews 5:4-6 “Also, a man takes this honor, not of his own accord, but only when he is called by God, just as Aaron also was. So too the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but by Him who spoke with reference to him: ‘You are my son; I, today, I have become your father.’ Just as he says also in another place: ‘You are a priest forever according to the manner of Melchizedek.’”

     Then, the text in Hebrews in its Greek form states it clearly in another way. In Heb. 7:15: “And more extra still it is evident, since according to the likeness of Melchizedek arises another priest.” Here the word translated “another” is heteros in Greek. Actually, the nuance of this word is better expressed in English as “different.” “Another” should rather be translated from allos, not heteros. This shows the distinctness of Jesus from Melchizedek while following a manner of Melchizedek, namely, his priesthood.

     Also, Jesus received his priesthood from God. If Jesus were Melchizedek, he would have been a priest since before his birth, in fact, eternally. But, no, the Bible says that this office of priesthood has been given Jesus.

     Heb. 5:9, 10: “…and after he had been made perfect he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, because he has been specifically called by God a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek.”

     Heb. 6:20: “…where a forerunner has entered in our behalf, Jesus, who has become a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek for ever.”

     Heb. 7:15, 16 “And it is still more abundantly clear that with a similarity to Melchizedek there arises another priest, who has become such…”

     Heb. 7:22 “…to that extent also Jesus has become the one given in pledge of a better covenant.”

     Heb. 8:6 “But now Jesus has obtained a more excellent public service, so that he is also the mediator of a correspondingly better covenant, which has been legally established upon better promises.”

     Now, these texts irrefutably proves Jesus’ distinctness from Melchizedek and the One who appointed them, God Almighty. Jesus’ priesthood had a beginning after the time of Melchizedek’s public service.

     Also, the context in which Yahweh God expressed his promise to give Jesus a priesthood in the manner of Melchizedek’s, is after the text of Ps. 110:1:

     “Adonai (Yahweh) said to adoni (my Lord), sit on my right hand…”

     Jesus’ and Yahweh’s inequality and ontological distinctness is
     irrefutably indicated here.

     In light of all these do we need to understand the section in Heb. 7. Fortunately translational bias is not that much of an issue in this regard. Only by ignoring the overwhelmingly dominant background determinants and Hebrew bedrock concepts can one arrive at an isolated and unsupported Melchizedek=Jesus=Yahweh, with no Scriptural grounds whatsoever.

     That can’t be equivocated away so easily, can it? Now, I’m sure you can find a canned answer posted somewhere if you look hard enough, and you can always claim that Hebrews has been “doctored” by those “Trinitarian bad guys” … but where does this excuse stop?

     Here you do it again…STOP “poisoning the well.” STOP telling me what I’ll say. STOP attacking the argument. STICK to arguing your case.

     Finally, at least you did admit something that will save us all time. You’ve declared that the you cannot prove “Unitarianism” using the accepted Authorized Text.

     No, Unitarianism can be proved by much of the Authorized Text – where in fact it has not been altered in doctrinally significant areas. As these areas have been demonstrated to be spurious, better and more authentic mss. confirm the Unitarian stance perfectly.

     I suppose that I must beg you to show me what the Bible is really supposed to say. Surely, I must come learn at the feet of Jaco, who has been gifted with the Golden Tablets of the Original Unitarian Gospel from a divine agent appearing as an angel of light.
     [Yes, that’s sarcastic. But what is your claim to inerrancy?]

     Patrick, you’ve gone too far with your unchristian sarcasm. Instead of arguing your case, you’re attacking me personally. I will not stand for it.

     In hindsight, I wasn’t being slanderous when I was suggesting taking a marker, or a pen, or a penknife and just editing the scripture the way you like… it was prophetic!

     Well, you’r cherry picking what is Scripturally acceptable and what is not…not me.

     You and Robert are both examples of this: it’s much easier to support a doctrine by claiming “mistranslation” rather than having to adjust yourself to the “difficult texts” that challenge what you might have wanted to believe.

     Fallacy: Guilt by association. ARGUE THE CASE! The areas where the Authorised Text has been shown to be inaccurate and spurious are valid objections to those specific renderings. It has nothing to do with inerrancy. Consulting earlier and more authentic texts proves the Authorised Text’s inferiority. Your associating me with Robert on irrelevant grounds is fallacious and preposterous. I won’t even bother to defend your fallacy.

     In your case [Jaco], you’ve admitted that it really does make a difference if you believe the AV text but you refuse to discuss the issue of the integrity of that same AV text, but you insist on arguing anyway, without an agreement as to the correct text.

     I’m not going to do your homework, Patrick. I showed you where the 1 Tim. 3:16 text has been corrupted. You have to prove that it hasn’t, and provide the manuscript evidence for it. Nor am I going to give you Koine Greek lessons. Do your own homework and present the evidence where any text has “ho theos” as the subject of John 1:1c.

     Thus, you’re not sincere. You’re not interested in resolution, but you continue to argue (and rather insultingly, at that.)

     I’ve nowhere been insulting. You have. DON’T YOU BE THE JUDGE OF MY SINCERITY. Your demeanor and dishonest course have been highlighted time and time again. I would not have been that comfortable with all the arguments against me if I were you. Instead of arguing the case, you attacked my arguments, made uncalled-for insulting and sarcastic remarks, and proceeded from fallacious points all the time. And you dare call me insincere?

     1) Even though I may also be guilty of posting long comments, I cannot keep up with the amount of text in your comments. It’s a time and resource issue.

     Well, my arguments still stand, and yours left unproved and exposed as demonstrably false.

     2) Additionally, you’ve said to me that you cannot prove Unitarianism from my bible, but you have no interest in proving that you have a bible that is more accurate.

     I never said that (straw man fallacy). There are many superior translations based on much more authentic mss. evidence than the Textus Receptus. If you want to argue the case for the AV, we can do it on another thread. In the meantime the demonstrably better renderings still refute your position.

     3) Therefore, I am unable to prove anything to you, and you are unable to prove anything to me. That’s called a stalemate. No one can prove anything any more. Congratulations. You’ve avoided a “loss.” Isn’t that the reason for moving into a stalemate?

     No, wrong again. Let’s use a neutral translation, or, let’s use the Greek text, and then we proceed from there. My arguments still stand, and yours exposed. This is not stalemate. Unless you can maneuver your way logically out of this position, it’s checkmate for you.

     4) How do you intend to prove the Virgin birth to Robert, since he’s adopted a similar defense to believe whatever he wants to believe? You’ve put your doctrine first, and then the text.

     Another fallacious attempt…

     5) Hebrews 7:4 … having neither beginning of days, nor end of life …

     I gave you the answer.

     That doesn’t horrify Jews, but it does seem to terrify some people… I guess you can always claim “inserted text” because of “Trinitarian bad guys.”

     No, it does horrify the Jews, whose Hebrew conceptual bedrock you’ve been conveniently ignoring and demonstrably counts conclusively against your arguments. Judging by your conduct and demeanor, you display signs of being terrified. And, yet again, you fallaciously argue a case here I never made…

     Jya ne,

     What’s this supposed to mean? Please translate.

     My challenge to you is to use Codex Vaticanus or Codex Alexandrinus (Hebrews included) as the Greek text to argue your case. If those codices are too young to your taste, we can go back to the Chester-Beatty renderings dating from 200 C.E (save Hebrews). Your agreeing to this will be much appreciated, not only by myself, but also the other posters here. Your declining the challenge will indicate your calling it quits. In the meantime my arguments stand against what’s left for you to prove.

     Disappointed in you, but still respectful of you,

     Jaco

     P.S. If length is such an issue to you, why do you still post lengthy replies to the other guys’ posts? And that even off topic?

187. on 08 Feb 2010 at 7:27 am187 Jaco

     Sorry for posting twice…

188. on 08 Feb 2010 at 9:08 am188 Xavier

     Michael,

     …BU’s do not believe that Jesus shares the same ontological category of being as his Father before and after the resurrection and God is not a human being.

     Your using language and categories that are reserved to philosophical thought. Do you share “the same ontological category of being” as your Father? Whatever that means, it does not mean you are one ane the same person, does it?

     The Bible simply says that the man [human being, anthropos] was created by the spirit of God [Lu 1.30-35]. This made him the “one-of-a-kind” [monogenes] Son of the Living God [Mat 16.16]. Thus, fulfilling the prophetic word regarding “the seed of the woman” [Ex 3.15], the prophet like Moses [Deut 18.15-18], natural Son of God [Ps 2.7] and heir to the Davidic throne [2Sam 7].

189. on 08 Feb 2010 at 3:28 pm189 Andrew Patrick

     Dear Jaco,

     You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either the Authorized Text proves your doctrine, or it disproves your doctrine.

     Jaco wrote:
     

     No, Unitarianism can be proved by much of the Authorized Text – where in fact it has not been altered in doctrinally significant areas.

     If you have to be allowed to pick and choose, and change every area that contradicts and refutes your chosen position, you’re admitting that the Authorized Text refutes Unitarianism.

     That’s called revisionist, Jaco. You’re not basing your beliefs on the text, you’re basing your text on your beliefs.

     Fallacy: Guilt by association. ARGUE THE CASE!

     Robert uses the same methods as you to deny the virgin birth. He picks and chooses what he wants. If you both accomplish the same ends by the same means, you’re both equally guilty. Whether you are associates or not is irrelevant.

     The areas where the Authorised Text has been shown to be inaccurate and spurious are valid obj ections to those specific renderings.

     Yet you have not shown any areas of the Authorized text as inaccurate or spurious. But I have seen you (and Robert) apply circular reasoning in this regard – it it contradicts Unitarinism, it must be “inaccurate” or “spurious.”

     However, you already declined the offer to establish a common text, to put your challenges to the test. There are no inaccuracies or spurious portions of the Authorized Text. It has no incorrect renderings.

     It has nothing to do with inerrancy.

     It has everything to do with inerrancy. That’s the standard.

     Consulting earlier and more authentic texts proves the Authorised Text’s inferiority. Your associating me with Robert on irrelevant grounds is fallacious and preposterous. I won’t even bother to defend your fallacy.

     You both pick and choose the parts of the scripture you prefer, and have to argue that plain words don’t mean what they mean, such as “virgin” and “neither beginning of days, nor end of life.” I am expected to ask you what the Bible really meant to say.

     For example, you had previously said:

     Mistranslation by trinitarians and convenient ambiguity in English made them scrub out what it originally said, creating their own Bible, one of which emerged in 1611.

     That’s a pretty wild charge, Jaco. It’s also awfully convenient for you. That also sounds pretty much like when Robert claimed that the Virgin Birth was edited into the gospels of Matthew and Luke by “people like me.”

     I think I’m perfectly justified in associating you with Robert.

     Now observe the classic example of circular reasoning:
     Jaco wrote:
     There are many superior translations based on much more authentic mss. evidence than the Textus Receptus. If you want to argue the case for the AV, we can do it on another thread. In the meantime the demonstrably better renderings still refute your position.

     In other words, we must first assume you have the “correct translation” (a combination of Unitarian-edited Alexandrian text and the Word of Jaco) as true and correct, and then we can prove that the Unitarian gospel and the Word of Jaco is true and correct. Amazing!

     Since you are so concerned about “staying on the thread topic” let me remind you of something: this blog page was specifically built in response to my “Jesus Only” critique of Sean’s essay, which is based upon the foundation of an inerrant authorized text.

     So, if you want to use a different text, and claim that my “Oneness” doctrine is due to a deliberate Trinitarian sabotage of the scriptures…. it’s you who bear the burden of proof to:
     1) demonstrate at least a single case of contradiction or error
     2) to establish an acceptable alternative text without error

     Jaco wrote:

     No, wrong again. Let’s use a neutral translation, or, let’s use the Greek text, and then we proceed from there. My arguments still stand, and yours exposed. This is not stalemate. Unless you can maneuver your way logically out of this position, it’s checkmate for you.

     A “neutral translation?” The authorized text is a neutral translation, by your very own testimony. You’ve claimed it was purposely mistranslated by Trinitarians to obscure the truth. So if you’re Unitarian, and I’m Oneness, that sort of makes it “neutral” here, doesn’t it?

     Regardless, next you’d be arguing against the Greek received text, and regardless, you don’t speak Greek, and additionally, you have demonstrated a clear Unitarian bias.

     Jaco wrote:

     My challenge to you is to use Codex Vaticanus or Codex Alexandrinus (Hebrews included) as the Greek text to argue your case.

     You consider Codex Vaticanus as a superior “more authentic” text? An obviously flawed and doctored copy chock-full of scribal errors that has been under the lock and key of the Papacy, against the mass agreement of the Greek Received Text that had already spread across the entire world?

     And to support all of this, I am supposed to believe that you are “scholarly” and “unbiased” or even sensible? I didn’t bother pointing this out before, but I feel that perhaps I should, especially since you were quite belligerent about it.

     Jaco wrote (and seemed quite confident of):

     Well, that’s convenient! And you call me revisionist? John quoted what Jesus said. And I, quite frankly, believed that John was inspired to write what he did.

     …

     Well, that’s what you did with John’s quote…how convenient. If rejecting John’s rendering of Jesus’ words in preference to an OT scripture (which confirms Jesus’ words)

     For the reader, where does it say that John is quoting the words of Christ in John 19:35-37? Let’s see who is “revisionist” here, shall we?

     Joh 19:35-37 KJV
     (35) And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
     (36) For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
     (37) And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

     John is paraphrasing Old Testament scripture, not quoting alternative revisionist texts. Those are not the “Words of Christ in Red” and your claim that John is quoting Jesus is entirely unfounded. So, maybe I am calling you revisionist. John nowhere indicates that he is quoting the words of Christ, quoting from some sort of non-traditional text.

     One final note:

     P.S. If length is such an issue to you, why do you still post lengthy replies to the other guys’ posts? And that even off topic?

     1) In case you haven’t noticed, I am the minority voice here, the only “representative” of what Sean calls “Oneness” – yet everyone expects themselves to be specifically responded to, even though I am outnumbered.

     2) Because most of the posters jump in as if “Unitarianism” must be “assumed” lengthy posts are often required to establish a foundation.

     3) In my experience no one ever looks up a scripture when its cited: it has to be quoted. This is additionally important when the target audience is known to search and hunt out translations that eliminate difficult passages from the text.

     4) Xavier and Thomas ran back and forth for a day off-topic. The fastest and surest way to get it back on track was to answer it completely. Besides, it really did bug me to see someone trying to tell someone else that Jews (or anyone) were under the law of Moses.

     Conclusion:

     I am not going to argue senselessly with you, and I am tired of endless words when all that’s going to happen is a fresh person will “tag team” (always ignoring what’s been established in previous posts) until they declare victory once I tire of typing…

     This specific thread was started to analyze an alternative position that you Unitarian guys seldom consider (said Sean) and that position is “Jesus is the One God” and even more specifically, upon my “Inerrant Authorized Text” platform.

     So jumping in and claiming that now we’re going to adopt a Unitarian-friendly text (as “true and unbiased”) as the assumed text is not going to fly. If you want to address the issue of the AV text, face it fairly and squarely, and perhaps there is a preferable forum for this subtopic.

     But in the meantime, seeing how none of you claim to have an inerrant text, and it’s my “Oneness” doctrine you are attacking, it’s the authorized text we’ll be using. And you’ve already admitted you can’t win using the AV text.

     And most ironically, you’re implying that you can’t disprove “Oneness” using a bible that was purposely revised by Trinitarians.

     So please forgive me if I’m not convinced of your sincerity.

     -Andrew

190. on 08 Feb 2010 at 3:41 pm190 Andrew Patrick

     Addendum:

     I made a few formatting and grammatical errors and I want to clear up:

     1) I have not seen Jaco deny the Virgin Birth, and I apologize if my grammar made it seem that way.

     2) I do not really believe that the received text or the Authorized text was altered in any fashion for any Trinitarian bias. When I’ve repeated this, I’m reminding Jaco that this is his claim.

     3) I messed up a couple ending blockquote tags. I’m sure they can be figured out.

     -Andrew

191. on 08 Feb 2010 at 8:18 pm191 Ray

     I’ve often heard trinitarians say that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.

     I’ve often found this to be confusing.

     The scripture says that God is not a man so it seems to me that some people might wonder, “If not being a man is one of the things in the 100% part of God, then wouldn’t Jesus be lacking in at least some of the percentage of what God is, as long as he was a man.?”

     I wish rather they would say that Jesus is 100% Son of God and 100% son of man. I think that’s clear.

     A man can be 100% son of his father, as well as 100% son of his mother, can’t he? Who could have it any other way? Even Jesus was 100% Son of his Father (God) and 100% son of his mother,
     Mary.

192. on 08 Feb 2010 at 10:00 pm192 Andrew Patrick

     Dear Ray,

     That “God is not a man” phrase is so oft misquoted on these forums by eliminating its context:

     Num 23:18-19 KJV
     (18) And he took up his parable, and said, Rise up, Balak, and hear; hearken unto me, thou son of Zippor:
     (19) God is not a man, that he should lie; neither strong>the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

     This parable has nothing to do whether God can manifest himself in the flesh as a man. It has everything to do with the word of God being true, and not subject to being swayed as mortal men.

     Even this cannot be taken to the extreme that God does not change his mind (which is another indication that God does not have the entire future mapped out…) – because God has changed his mind (repented) from time to time:

     1Ch 21:15 KJV
     (15) And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.

     Jon 3:10 KJV
     (10) And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

     Whenever I hear a Unitarian citing “God is not a man” as an attempted evidence or proof against the Divinity of the Christ, I don’t take them seriously any more. It was exactly this type of flawed context-omitting proof-texting that I was protesting with the aforementioned “When Jesus Awoke and Calmed the Storm” article.

     Ray wrote:

     I’ve often heard trinitarians say that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.

     I’ve often found this to be confusing.

     Without any sort of explanation, that would sound confusing.

     I wish rather they would say that Jesus is 100% Son of God and 100% son of man. I think that’s clear.

     But that doesn’t tell us anything, either. You might as well say he was 100% Jesus.

     Would it be confusing if I told you that I had an object that was both “100% water” and “100% solid?”

     One is the substance, or the being, and the other is the shape, or the form, and they are not necessarily contradictory. “God” is the person, and “man” is a form.

     If I took the entire ocean, and then took one gallon of that ocean into a vessel, is that water inside the vessel 100% ocean? If I freeze that water, is it still 100% ocean, even though the natural state of the ocean is primarily liquid? Would anyone claim that there are now “two oceans” or is it still “one ocean?”

     -Andrew

193. on 09 Feb 2010 at 1:18 am193 Xavier

     Andrew,

     Give it up friend, your waffling!

194. on 09 Feb 2010 at 3:23 am194 Michael

     I wrote… if you are a Biblical Unitarian you must come up with another definition of God as the Father of Jesus since BU’s do not believe that Jesus shares the same ontological category of being as his Father before and after the resurrection and God is not a human being.

     Mark writes…Not all Biblical Unitarians believe that.

     Mark writes…I believe that “Son of God” is a title that was prophesied about the Messiah, Luke 1:35 indicates he was ontologically God’s Son as well. Both are true.

     Mark writes…He had said in the previous verse, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” This describes two people. And afterward he describes in detail the relationship between the son and the father. Nowhere is ontological unity even hinted at.

     Mark writes…Believe that if you want, but this passage (John 5) is not talking about that and is not proof of ontological unity

     Mark writes… The Bible says nothing about “ontological categories” and since the term is rather vague I prefer to use the terminology that the Bible uses. It says Jesus is God’s Son by way of His Holy Spirit, according to Luke 1. He is also called the son of man, and was born of Mary, a human. He is Son of God AND Son of Man. Since the resurrection he is a human being, but an exalted human being with characteristics beyond what mortal men have.

     Marks responses reflect the paradox with the foundation of Unitarian doctrine; on one hand they want Jesus to be the Son of God like any child is a son of their father but on the other hand they have a Father who is not a human being having a Son that is.

     So the solution was that the words Jesus as the “Son of God” would be synonymous with being God’s ultimate human agent reducing the term “Son of God” to a title.

     But when we read and feel the relationship between God and Jesus these definitions run cold and there is a longing for this relationship to that of any father and son so as Mark wrote of the words “Son of God” as a title and as a ontological connection with God he said “both are true”

     But both cannot be true and until you can hear and know what day God declared “You are my Son, this day I have begotten thee” the paradox will remain.

195. on 09 Feb 2010 at 8:06 am195 Jaco

     Andrew, you said,

     If you have to be allowed to pick and choose, and change every area that contradicts and refutes your chosen position, you’re admitting that the Authorized Text refutes Unitarianism.

     Fallacy: Straw man. You’re misrepresenting me again. Where did I pick and choose? And where was the basis for my rejecting a rendering based solely on my position? I rejected the rendering you used of 1 Tim. 3:16 based on manuscript evidence. The AV was translated from a text which had as its source late texts corrupted in several areas. The manuscript evidence confirms my position and refutes yours.

     Secondly, I had a problem, not with the source text’s rendering of John 1:1, but with the ambiguous and inaccurate translation of theos’ in John 1:1c into English.

     Thirdly, I had a problem, not with the source text’s rendering of Zechariah 12:10, but with the ambiguous and inaccurate translation of the eth asher into English. As I demonstrated in another text where the exact Hebrew construct was used, as well as the apostle John’s (not Jesus’, I stand corrected) quoting/paraphrasing the text indicating the same nuance of an accurate rendering of Zech. 12:10. These are all valid and confirmed objections to both your position, the manuscript integrity of the translation you use, as well as the actual translation from the original languages.

     NO picking and choosing, NO changing areas contradicting my stance, CERTAIN solid evidence against what you proposed.

     That’s called revisionist, Jaco. You’re not basing your beliefs on the text, you’re basing your text on your beliefs.

     What you described up there is at face-value indeed revisionist. Since I demonstrably did not conform to that misrepresented description of your straw man, you’re left picking another label for me…

     Secondly, YOU could not provide any manuscript evidence for the superiority of the 1 Tim 3:16 rendering you prefer. YOU believe the AV to be the inerrant rendering of God’s word. So, instead of projecting your demonstrably circular approach to the matter upon me, practice what you preach.

     Robert uses the same methods as you to deny the virgin birth. He picks and chooses what he wants. If you both accomplish the same ends by the same means, you’re both equally guilty. Whether you are associates or not is irrelevant.

     No, sorry, your fallacy of guilt by association still stands, since this remark above amounts to faulty analogy. There is no textual evidence against the virgin birth. The only variations existing today is regarding the husband/father variation in the Aramaic Peshitta and Shem Tov’s versions of Matthew. NOT so with the manuscript corruptions of the Textus Receptus. The evidence counts against the AV, not so in Robert’s case. Sorry, yet again, but you’re being fallacious.

     Yet you have not shown any areas of the Authorized text as inaccurate or spurious. But I have seen you (and Robert) apply circular reasoning in this regard – it it contradicts Unitarinism, it must be “inaccurate” or “spurious.”

     Apart from yet another persistent attempt of guilt by association, I told you that I would not do your homework for you. You are basing your unconfirmed trust in a text full of errors and upon that assumption YOU judge the convictions of others. THAT, my friend is circular reasoning.

     To give you a hint which you can further research on your own, proceed from here: in 1 Tim 3:16 OC, not ΘC, was the original rendering, as attested by manuscripts and versions earlier than the seventh century. These include Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Peshito, Harclean Syriac, Memphitic, Thebaic, Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic versions, as well as an Arabic version of the Bible. Nowhere is it rendered ΘC in stead of OC prior to the Arabic of the Polyglot and the Sclavonic versions. Erasmus, who compiled the Textus Receptus used several manuscripts none of which dated back earlier than the tenth century. So, here’s a head start. You can take it from here.

     However, you already declined the offer to establish a common text, to put your challenges to the test. There are no inaccuracies or spurious portions of the Authorized Text. It has no incorrect renderings.

     Where did I decline the offer? YOU were the one insisting on AV. There are countless inaccuracies and spurious additions to the Textus Receptus. Unless you can produce counter-evidence, yours can be called your Bible, or, to use your nasty language, Andrew’s bible.

     You both pick and choose the parts of the scripture you prefer, and have to argue that plain words don’t mean what they mean, such as “virgin” and “neither beginning of days, nor end of life.” I am expected to ask you what the Bible really meant to say.

     No, the Bible explains what is meant in all its contents. You conveniently isolate and divorce one section from the rest of Scripture. Hence your demonstrably faulty and unscriptural understanding of “neither beginning of days, nor end of life” in Hebrews 7. Not to mention your structural fallacies, inconsistent interpretation (which you yourself called “dumb.”), your non-Hebraic understanding of sh’liachim, and ignoring clear and unambiguous grammar. All these arguments against the unsatisfactory and unfounded position you proposed.

     “Mistranslation by trinitarians and convenient ambiguity in English made them scrub out what it originally said, creating their own Bible, one of which emerged in 1611.”

     That’s a pretty wild charge, Jaco. It’s also awfully convenient for you. That also sounds pretty much like when Robert claimed that the Virgin Birth was edited into the gospels of Matthew and Luke by “people like me.”

     I think I’m perfectly justified in associating you with Robert.

     No, you’re not justified to do it. And I’m not going to descend to your level by comparing you to anyone. I proved the inferiority of the AV’s source in one of the texts you brought up, and also indicated where the translation has been sorely lacking in its English rendering. You couldn’t refute these devastating arguments, which followed with your resorting to unchristian and dishonest fallacious tactics. Your faulty analogy and comparison of me with Robert is also demonstrably false.

     There are many superior translations based on much more authentic mss. evidence than the Textus Receptus. If you want to argue the case for the AV, we can do it on another thread. In the meantime the demonstrably better renderings still refute your position.

     There’s no circular reasoning here.

     First premise: More authentic mss. ensure more authentic translations.

     Second premise: The AV is based on less authentic mss.

     Conclusion: Hence, the AV is a less authentic translation.

     Perfectly logical. My suggestion was for you to pick a translation which neither of us uses. Since the AV is based on qualitatively inferior ms. traditions, determining truth requires the testimony of more reliable mss. You assume that ONLY the KJV is the actual word of God. BASED ON THAT ASSUMPTION, you determine doctrinal truth – and you dare call my reasoning circular! Speak for yourself.

     In other words, we must first assume you have the “correct translation” (a combination of Unitarian-edited Alexandrian text and the Word of Jaco) as true and correct, and then we can prove that the Unitarian gospel and the Word of Jaco is true and correct. Amazing!

     Fallacy: Straw man. You’re violating the terms of this forum by your uncalled-for sarcasm. Your demeanor is simply unchristian…

     Since you are so concerned about “staying on the thread topic” let me remind you of something: this blog page was specifically built in response to my “Jesus Only” critique of Sean’s essay, which is based upon the foundation of an inerrant authorized text.

     …there you start your circle again…

     So, if you want to use a different text, and claim that my “Oneness” doctrine is due to a deliberate Trinitarian sabotage of the scriptures…. it’s you who bear the burden of proof to:
     1) demonstrate at least a single case of contradiction or error

     The rest of us have seen that I provided you with the evidence of contradiction regarding 1 Tim 3:16. Take the time and revisit it. We’ll wait for your counter-evidence.

     2) to establish an acceptable alternative text without error

     Based on textual confirmation, the alternative for 1 Tim 3:16 has been provided, as well as the linguistic support for Zech. 12:10 (confirmed by John 19:37), as well as John 1:1.
     The rest of us are waiting for your counter-evidence and non-fallacious arguments, please.

     A “neutral translation?” The authorized text is a neutral translation, by your very own testimony. You’ve claimed it was purposely mistranslated by Trinitarians to obscure the truth. So if you’re Unitarian, and I’m Oneness, that sort of makes it “neutral” here, doesn’t it?

     The AV a neutral translation by my own testimony? When on earth did I say that? AV is not neutral. It’s your preferred version for reasons you have not advanced here. So, for the record, your preference of the AV is thus far still baseless and unfounded. It is still my challenge to you to pick a manuscript or version of the NT from among the earliest (to ensure accuracy, of course) and then make your case. If God’s word is inerrant (as you believe) you most certainly won’t have a problem, will you?

     Regardless, next you’d be arguing against the Greek received text, and regardless, you don’t speak Greek, and additionally, you have demonstrated a clear Unitarian bias.

     Well, Andrew, I have not been the one assuming superiority of a late and inaccurate version without providing the textual and translational evidence for the assumption…you have! You don’t know my background, you don’t know my linguistic proficiency. Attacking these would in anyway only prove another dishonest ad hominem attempt at discrediting the arguments, which is not surprising anymore. As regards my proficiency in Greek…well…we’ll just have to see about that…

     You consider Codex Vaticanus as a superior “more authentic” text? An obviously flawed and doctored copy chock-full of scribal errors that has been under the lock and key of the Papacy, against the mass agreement of the Greek Received Text that had already spread across the entire world?

     Well, to quote you, Andrew, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either the Vatican Text proves your doctrine, or it disproves your doctrine. ” Where are the errors? What are the correct renderings of those errors? What is the textual basis for claiming these errors?…bring it on, brother, I’m ready for your evidence.

     And to support all of this, I am supposed to believe that you are “scholarly” and “unbiased” or even sensible? I didn’t bother pointing this out before, but I feel that perhaps I should, especially since you were quite belligerent about it.

     Another ad hominem attack. What a pity that someone has to resort to such measures…

     John is paraphrasing Old Testament scripture, not quoting alternative revisionist texts. Those are not the “Words of Christ in Red” and your claim that John is quoting Jesus is entirely unfounded. So, maybe I am calling you revisionist. John nowhere indicates that he is quoting the words of Christ, quoting from some sort of non-traditional text.

     I have indeed made a mistake in this regard, and you are quite correct there. That definitely does not make me revisionist, sorry. It does still prove you to have double standards, see. In your own words, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either the [inspired words of John] proves your doctrine, or it disproves your doctrine. ” You’re back to where I left you at.

     1) In case you haven’t noticed, I am the minority voice here, the only “representative” of what Sean calls “Oneness” – yet everyone expects themselves to be specifically responded to, even though I am outnumbered.

     Well, Andrew, you picked your company. Jumping around and arguing ad nauseam or ad verbosum what I showed to be clearly fallacious, unscriptural and illogical won’t do anything to advance a cause demonstrably untrue.

     2) Because most of the posters jump in as if “Unitarianism” must be “assumed” lengthy posts are often required to establish a foundation.

     Oh? Where is that assumption made? To date, I’d say, your posts were among the lengthiest…

     3) In my experience no one ever looks up a scripture when its cited: it has to be quoted. This is additionally important when the target audience is known to search and hunt out translations that eliminate difficult passages from the text.

     …no…wrong again. You see, a lover of truth will search for truth based on evidence. Maybe that’s not your way of going about, but looking for a translation based on superior manuscript evidence ensures a greater likelihood of finding truth. Better search out and hunt for more accurate texts than blindly assume the veracity of a demonstrably erroneous text. The contrary is left to be proven by you…

     4) Xavier and Thomas ran back and forth for a day off-topic. The fastest and surest way to get it back on track was to answer it completely. Besides, it really did bug me to see someone trying to tell someone else that Jews (or anyone) were under the law of Moses.

     I’ll wait for the answering of my yet-unchallenged arguments against yours. I’d hope that all these still-unchallenged areas of evidence will be bugging you too.

     I am not going to argue senselessly with you, and I am tired of endless words when all that’s going to happen is a fresh person will “tag team” (always ignoring what’s been established in previous posts) until they declare victory once I tire of typing…

     The only one who has thus far employed senseless (syn., fallacious) arguments has been shown to be you. So, senseless arguing can only be prevented by you, brother. Stop doing it, and, by what you object to above, all will be sorted

     This specific thread was started to analyze an alternative position that you Unitarian guys seldom consider (said Sean) and that position is “Jesus is the One God” and even more specifically, upon my “Inerrant Authorized Text” platform.

     Yes, yes, and this thread has also exposed those positions as seriously lacking scriptural support.

     So jumping in and claiming that now we’re going to adopt a Unitarian-friendly text (as “true and unbiased”) as the assumed text is not going to fly. If you want to address the issue of the AV text, face it fairly and squarely, and perhaps there is a preferable forum for this subtopic.

     Well, it’s good to start on common ground. I used to do that when debating Muslims – I took, say, Sura Al Anbiya to start a conversation on immortality on earth. That served as a stepping stone to direct their attention to a demonstrably more authentic testimony of truth, the Bible. Since other versions from demonstrably superior manuscript evidence would be the more authentic testimony of truth in this case, I’d hope the lover of truth would welcome that invitation also here.

     But in the meantime, seeing how none of you claim to have an inerrant text, and it’s my “Oneness” doctrine you are attacking, it’s the authorized text we’ll be using. And you’ve already admitted you can’t win using the AV text.

     Well, nor do you have proof of the AV’s inerrancy. What I do claim is that there are superior mss. upon which we should build our doctrine. This is no mere claim. Yours is. You can’t win using more accurate, earlier texts. Nor can you win unless you resort to fallacious arguments and ad hominem attacks. And, alas, won’t you win unless you address the devastating arguments against your stance that are left solidly unchallenged.

     And most ironically, you’re implying that you can’t disprove “Oneness” using a bible that was purposely revised by Trinitarians.

     And your point is?

     So please forgive me if I’m not convinced of your sincerity.

     Wow, and you’re the one to judge? Your behaviour leaves much to be desired, brother.

     In Christ,

     Jaco

     BTW, Andrew, what does “Jya ne” mean? I’m really curious.

196. on 09 Feb 2010 at 9:20 am196 Mark C.

     Marks responses reflect the paradox with the foundation of Unitarian doctrine; on one hand they want Jesus to be the Son of God like any child is a son of their father but on the other hand they have a Father who is not a human being having a Son that is.

     We never said we “want Jesus to be the Son of God like any child is a son of their father.” He is uniquely conceived by God by the power of the Holy Spirit.

     So the solution was that the words Jesus as the “Son of God” would be synonymous with being God’s ultimate human agent reducing the term “Son of God” to a title.

     Again, not all Unitarians believe it was only a title. (And the title refers to more than God’s ultimate human agent. It is connected with the King of God’s Kingdom in prophecies.)

     But when we read and feel the relationship between God and Jesus these definitions run cold and there is a longing for this relationship to that of any father and son so as Mark wrote of the words “Son of God” as a title and as a ontological connection with God he said “both are true”

     But both cannot be true and until you can hear and know what day God declared “You are my Son, this day I have begotten thee” the paradox will remain.

     Why can’t both be true? The Bible presents him as both, and there’s nothing that would contradict that, regardless of how you interpret “this day have I begotten you.”

197. on 09 Feb 2010 at 3:12 pm197 Michael

     Mark writes… We never said we “want Jesus to be the Son of God like any child is a son of their father.” He is uniquely conceived by God by the power of the Holy Spirit.

     Response- A father gives something of himself in the conception of a child; do you believe that God did also?

     Mark writes… Again, not all Unitarians believe it was only a title. And the title refers to more than God’s ultimate human agent. It is connected with the King of God’s Kingdom in prophecies.

     Response- But Unitarians do not believe that Jesus as the Son of God is actually God’s Son because if God had an actual Son he would be the same type of being as his Father so you are left with titles only and your discomfort with this is obvious so you fall back on your “Why can’t both be true?”

     Because if you really believed that Jesus was the Son of God you would not need all these tortuous definitions to do so but relax, you’re in good company. When Sean first explained Jesus as the Son of God he used his own experience as a father to do so and Anthony Buzzard called God the biological Father of Jesus on a teaching tape yet as you, when asked to expound on these statements all run from them.

198. on 09 Feb 2010 at 4:00 pm198 Mark C.

     A father gives something of himself in the conception of a child; do you believe that God did also?

     Yes. Jesus is called the Word made flesh. God’s Word is the “something of Himself” that He gave in the conception of His Son,

     But Unitarians do not believe that Jesus as the Son of God is actually God’s Son because if God had an actual Son he would be the same type of being as his Father so you are left with titles only and your discomfort with this is obvious so you fall back on your “Why can’t both be true?”

     That is according to your definition. The Bible says nothing about the Son being “the same type of being.” Jesus is the Son of God by divine conception, but he is also the son of man by way of his human mother. This combination makes him a different type of being, but no less the biological Son of God.

     We see something like this in the animal kingdom.  Certain species can be combined to form a new type of animal.  For example, a mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey.  It is a different type of animal from either of its parents, but is no less the offspring of those parents.  Not that I’m comparing Jesus to a mule, of course. And such cross-breeds are usually sterile, so the analogy only goes so far.  But the point is that it’s not true that for God to have a son means it has to be another “god.”  He combined His nature and characteristics – His Word – with human DNA from Mary and the result was the only-begotten Son of God.

     Because if you really believed that Jesus was the Son of God you would not need all these tortuous definitions to do so…

     What’s “tortuous” about it? Everybody knows what the words “father” and “son” mean. It seems more tortuous to get into words like “ontological” and “pre-existing, eternal son.”

     …but relax, you’re in good company. When Sean first explained Jesus as the Son of God he used his own experience as a father to do so and Anthony Buzzard called God the biological Father of Jesus on a teaching tape yet as you, when asked to expound on these statements all run from them.

     Where do you see anybody running from the question? Anthony, Sean and I all define it the same way. Luke 1 clearly defines how Jesus is the biological Son of God, by divine conception.

199. on 09 Feb 2010 at 4:20 pm199 robert

     Jaco and Andrew
     Would both of you leave me out of your arguement, I find ” guilt by association” offending.
     In some subjects Jaco Does use the same methods as i do to determine the context but in others he uses the same methods as you do Andrew.
     Yet i use the same method in every subject.
     I look at it from every angle and use the clear scriptures, the testamony of Jesus , history of the time period be referenced and Common sense to help me understand the context of whats not soo clear
     As for the birth narrative in Matthew, I can not accept an account that uses Isaiah 7 as a Jesus the messiah prophecy when the story is not about Jesus and that where the writer of the narrative in Matthew uses a greek translation not hebrew to claim it.
     as for Luke i have no problem with the word virgin but probably should of been young woman but all virgins were virgin till intercouse.
     plus as for her not knowing a man is a false statement using the first part of Lukes narrative because She was expecting to have a baby with her husband to be as all young women would.
     plus there is not one mention of this miracle by Jesus or by any other Nt writer.
     So you see my belief of the VC comes from the scriptures which testify against the VC and Just plain old common sense.

     there is some things of just about everyone here that i am proud to be associated with but there are other things i would be ashamed to be associated with which i have addressed in many threads here. Andrew your theory would nearly top the list right below the errors of the trinity.

200. on 09 Feb 2010 at 5:13 pm200 Andrew Patrick

     Dear Jaco,

     I have been asking (repeatedly) for the text volume to be toned down. You responded to a 1400 word post with almost 2800 words, and you’ve also been implying that I am not answering everything.

     I’m putting my foot down: I am not going to be writing 5000 or 10000 word essays in a measly blog format. Regardless, no matter what, I am accused of either being:

     1) long winded and writing posts that are too long, OR
     2) not answering everything, or abbreviating scripture quotations

     I am going to attempt to “cut to the quick” of your 2800 word post:

     1) the source text of the AV Bible is authentic and accurate.
     2) the translation of said text in the Authorized Bible is inerrant.

     3) Thank you for recognizing mistake concerning who was speaking in Zech 12:10… mistakes happen.

     4) Your claim that John was quoting a different source text in Zech 12:10 remains contested.

     I suggest he was paraphrasing the Masoretic text of Zech 12:10 (just as he paraphrased Psalm 34:20 in the adjacent verse) and by his interpretation showed that he believed Jesus to be the LORD.

     If you want to look at this particular question specifically, devote an entire post to it, please. The purpose of this post is to be concise.

     5) I have not even bothered with your 1 Tim 3:16 claim. I’m not even sure what you’re claiming. 1 Timothy 3:16 is accurate in its greek source text and perfect in its English translation.

     If you have a claim, please place it in a separate post, without a dozen other mingled subjects, and make your statements as clear cut as possible (continued in sub-reply 8).

     6) You claimed that the Textus Receptus opposed the virgin birth, but didn’t give any example. I find that hard to believe, since we had Robert protesting that the AV bible was edited to support it.

     7) You claimed that I am “basing your unconfirmed trust in a text full of errors …”

     Then show an error, one that does not require an unflinching “Unitarian” doctrine to recognize. Let’s compare the AV to any other English translation, of your choice.

     I have no idea how to paste Greek text into a blog format. I have, however, I found the specific argument you’re using.

     As a preview, “God was manifest in the flesh” was cited as early as Barnabus in 90 AD, and by many more, the cursives support the “Theta” reading, as do the lexionaries…
     

     there are over 300 Greek manuscripts with the “Theta” reading.

     If you want to enter into this, use a separate post, please.

     9) You protest that you never declined the offer to settle the issue of Bible preservation and integrity:

     Jaco wrote:
     

     Where did I decline the offer?

     Buried in the thousands of words of previous posts, after I had challenged that this argument had moved to where the question depended upon bible preservation and integrity:

     Jaco wrote, post 120:

     No such thing as a discussion on Bible preservation and integrity is needed. Textual criticism, maybe. Since you’re using the Authorised Version…you might have a problem.

     10) You need to understand the difference between an accusation and a proof:

     Jaco said
     

     I proved the inferiority of the AV’s source in one of the texts you brought up, and also indicated where the translation has been sorely lacking in its English rendering

     If you use thousands of words, of course there will be a few that I cannot answer, especially when I’m expected to answer half a dozen people at once. Your 1Ti 3:16 charge is not proved: rather, it seems pretty shaky to me.

     11) To summarize your position, in your own words:

     0) You need a different bible than the AV for Unitarianism.

     There’s no circular reasoning here.
     First premise: More authentic mss. ensure more authentic translations.
     Second premise: The AV is based on less authentic mss.
     Conclusion: Hence, the AV is a less authentic translation.

     However, you have decided that inferior texts and minority texts without support from lectionaries and proofs of early citation, are what constitutes “authentic” – ignoring majority texts and an overwhelming support that has been required before accepting minority text reading of the AV (which are few and far between.)

     I think this is circular reasoning: you know what result you want ahead of time, so this is the primary factor in the source you support.

     Go ahead and pick 1 Timothy 3:16 as a testing ground.

     12) I’m not yet 40% of the way through your post, and this is taking a long time. There are a lot of ad hominem attacks to wade through… your calling me “unchristian” and the like…

     13) Where is your secret Hebrew text that you claim that John was citing in Zech 12:10?

     14) Why the Authorized Version?

     Jaco wrote:

     It’s your preferred version for reasons you have not advanced here.

     I’ve stated exactly why it’s “preferred” – pure inerrancy.

     15) Insincere challenges are SPAM.

     Well, to quote you, Andrew, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either the Vatican Text proves your doctrine, or it disproves your doctrine. ” Where are the errors? What are the correct renderings of those errors? What is the textual basis for claiming these errors?…bring it on, brother, I’m ready for your evidence.

     That would only be applicable if you were willing to claim that the Vatican manuscript was inerrant. Your challenge is insincere: you’re not willing to stake your beliefs on every word of Vaticanus, and thus you’re just trying to waste my time.

     16) You claimed I am launching an “ad hominem attack” when I said I didn’t believe you were sensible, yet you admitted that the example I gave to substantiate this was an obvious error on your part.

     And to demonstrate your bias, note:

     Either the [inspired words of John] proves your doctrine, or it disproves your doctrine. ” You’re back to where I left you at.

     Zechariah 12:10 “and they shall look upon me [LORD] whom they have pierced” and John 19:37 “They shall look on him [JESUS] whom they pierced” is an inspired equivalence of JESUS and LORD.

     That’s a “Oneness” proof from the inspired words of John.

     I don’t think you understand the nature of bias.

     See, my bias is that I believe every word of my Authorized Bible resolves without contradiction. This is not an ungrounded biased – I’ve tested it in a multitude of ways. Thus, John does not contradict Zechariah, he understands Zechariah.

     However, your bias is that you have already decided that Jesus cannot be God manifest in the flesh. Thus, when you see the same verses you’ve decided that they contradict, rather than resolve.

     Your argument has little potential: you would have to disprove the entire Masoretic text with a secret Hebrew document with the alleged “true reading.” But, if your charge is that this is “mistranslated” then you have no proof at all, because your proof depends on which bias your target already possesses.

     17) “Manuscript evidence”

     Jaco wrote:

     You see, a lover of truth will search for truth based on evidence. Maybe that’s not your way of going about, but looking for a translation based on superior manuscript evidence ensures a greater likelihood of finding truth.

     That work has already been done, Jaco. It’s called the Masoretic Text (preserved to the jot and tittle), the Greek received Text, and the Authorized Version. I’ve done enough homework here to recognize that I don’t need to redo what has already been done.

     Jaco wrote:

     Better search out and hunt for more accurate texts than blindly assume the veracity of a demonstrably erroneous text.

     You seem to have a very strange idea of “demonstrably.” That implies that you are able to “demonstrate” an error. And as exhibited in the case of John’s quote, you make the mistake of thinking that your pre-existing bias is the proof!

     18) Would you please TRY to lay off the personal attacks?

     Conclusion:

     1) Your John/Zechariah argument is already dead-ended: your proof depends upon bias.

     2) You may present your 1 Tim 3:16 argument. I’ve located sufficient information in the meantime.

     3) Please stay concise.

     4) Please lay off the personal attacks.

     5) Please lay off of unfounded claims. I do not accept your bare assertion that you possess “more accurate manuscripts.”

     Jya ne,
     -Andrew

     P.S. I briefly responded to your 2800 words with 1400 words, again. Please help scale down, not up.

201. on 09 Feb 2010 at 5:24 pm201 Michael

     Mark writes…Jesus is the Son of God by divine conception, but he is also the son of man by way of his human mother. This combination makes him a different type of being, but no less the biological Son of God….We see something like this in the animal kingdom. Certain species can be combined to form a new type of animal.

     Response- If Jesus is a different type of being then why is he called a human being before the resurrection and not whatever this new being is?

     Mark writes…Anthony, Sean and I all define it the same way.

     Response- You are a teacher among Biblical Unitarians and you think Sean and Anthony believe that something from a human being was combined with something from God to form a new kind of unidentified being?

     Although I find these definitions appalling you are singularly courageous as a Biblical Unitarian to even address this in detail.

202. on 09 Feb 2010 at 6:10 pm202 Mark C.

     If Jesus is a different type of being then why is he called a human being before the resurrection and not whatever this new being is?

     I didn’t say he wasn’t human. But he was a unique human, having been conceived by God rather than a human father. He had characteristics of both God and man. This is in response to the claim that if God had a son it couldn’t be human.

     You are a teacher among Biblical Unitarians and you think Sean and Anthony believe that something from a human being was combined with something from God to form a new kind of unidentified being?

     No, not a new kind of “unidentified” being. He is a human being, but a unique one, as I said. Sean and Anthony have expressed their belief that Jesus was biologically the Son of God by divine conception. By definition that means that there was human DNA from Mary involved, and the conception was by God through His Holy Spirit, resulting in His Word being made flesh. I really don’t see what’s so difficult about this except that it contradicts your theology.

     Although I find these definitions appalling you are singularly courageous as a Biblical Unitarian to even address this in detail.

     I don’t see that this is anything that other Unitarians haven’t addressed.  The animal analogy may be different, but the idea that Jesus is both the son of God and the son of man is not.

203. on 09 Feb 2010 at 6:19 pm203 Mark C.

     plus as for her not knowing a man is a false statement using the first part of Lukes narrative because She was expecting to have a baby with her husband to be as all young women would.

     Could you provide a reference for this?

204. on 09 Feb 2010 at 7:02 pm204 Andrew Patrick

     For Jaco,

     Jaco has challenged that 1 Timothy 3:16 is spurious, and requested an answer: I’ve asked him to make a separate post, but I shall do so for him instead.

     1Ti 3:16 KJV
     (16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

     First, the internal evidence demands that the word say “God” – because it would make very little sense to speak of the “mystery of godliness” by saying that flesh was manifest in the flesh. You don’t have to be a theologian to see that.

     Second, this is the agreed upon reading of all early editions of the Greek New Testament, including Erasmus, Beza, Stephens, etc. All early English translations carried the reading of “God” excepting Wycliff’s 1380 translation (which used the Latin for its source, not having access to the Greek manuscripts.)

     Wycliffe’s translation (of the LATIN) reads:

     1 Timothy 3:16 And opynli it is a greet sacrament of pitee, that thing that was schewid in fleisch, it is iustified in spirit, it apperid to aungels, it is prechid to hethene men, it is bileuyd in the world, it is takun vp in glorie.

     However, Jaco has put that they simply did not have access to accurate Greek manuscripts. Yet, so far, the only English translation that would agree with him would be Wycliffe’s translation of the Latin.

     So let’s dig back a little further.

     Third, the reading of “He who was manifest in the flesh” did not otherwise appear until Wescott and Hort’s Greek New Testament of the Revised Standard Version in 1881. It seems that there was disagreement with more than one word in this passage, but I will focus simply on the word “God” or “theos” within this passage.

     Fourth, the testimony of the Greek fathers widely supports the accuracy of the majority of the Greek texts, that is, “theos was manifest in the flesh.” Opposition to this reading is the exception, not the rule, “manifesting” only in Gelasius of Cyzicus (476 AD) and an anonymous author of unknown date.

     Fifth, Unicals support the reading of “Theos” as in “God” from as far back as Codex A of the 5th century. Additional supporting unicals include K, L, and P of the 9th century.

     Sixth, there are 300 extant cursive copies of Pauls letters, numbered 1 through 300 (Paul 1, Paul 2, etc) of which contain 254 contain 1 Timothy 3:16.

     Out of this total, all but two (252/254) contain the reading of “God was manifest in the flesh…”, the exceptions being Paul 17 and Paul 73.

     Seventh, from the lectionaries of the Eastern Church, an overwhelming 29 out of 32 copies cite the accuracy of theos, that is, “God was manifest in the flesh.” These lectionaries date back before Sinaiticus (Aleph).

     For some perspective, the Sinaiticus manuscript was considered so corrupted by the Sinai monastary that they had thrown it away for burning. This manuscript was literally dug out of the trash.

     Therefore, the textual evidence for “God was manifest in the flesh” is not only overwhelming in terms of number, but also superior in date.

     Eighth, the reading of “God was manifest in the flesh” or “Theos” is not only seldom contradicted by ancient writers (two exceptions briefly mentioned in point 3) but strongly attested to and supported, including:

     1st Century: Bamabus, Ignatius (90 AD); 2nd Century: Hippolytus (190 AD); 3rd Century: Apostolic Constitutions, Epistle ascribed to Dionysius of Alexandria (264 AD), Gregory Thaumaturgus; 4th Century: Basil the Great (355 AD), Chrysostom (380 AD), Didymus (325 AD), Diodorus (370 AD), Gregory of Nazianzus (355 AD), Gregory of Nyssa (370 AD). “Euthalian” chapter title of I Tim. 3, attesting to “God in the flesh.”; 5th Century: Anon. citation in works of Athanasius (430 AD), Cyril of Alexandria (410 AD), Euthalius (458 AD), Macedonius 11(496 AD), Theodoret (420 AD); 6th Century: Severus, Bishop of Antioch (512 AD); 8th Century: Epiphanius of Catana (787 AD), John Damascene (730 AD), Theodorus Studita (790 AD); 10th Century: Ecumenius (990 AD); 11th Century: Theophylact (1077 AD); 12th Century: Euthymius (1116 AD).

     All the boldfaced authors are known to predate the Gelasius of Cyzicus (476 AD) who opposed the reading of “God.”

     See also http://ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html

     Conclusion:

     99.21% agreement in the Greek cursives (THEOS)
     90.62% agreement in the lectionaries of the Greek church , which predates Aleph (THEOS)
     …and evidence from the writings of the Greek fathers that “THEOS” was the known and accepted reading as far back as 90 AD

     Jaco wrote:

     Well, nor do you have proof of the AV’s inerrancy. What I do claim is that there are superior mss. upon which we should build our doctrine. This is no mere claim. Yours is. You can’t win using more accurate, earlier texts. Nor can you win unless you resort to fallacious arguments and ad hominem attacks. And, alas, won’t you win unless you address the devastating arguments against your stance that are left solidly unchallenged.

     First, it is a fallacy expecting me to prove a negative. When I claim the Authorized Text is inerrant, and that its source text is sound, you have the burden of proof to show an error.

     I think that this charge was absurd. I would feel very insecure if the strength of our positions were reversed.

     I cannot imagine any honest translation committee choosing a deviant reading such as “He who was manifest in the flesh” without realizing they were engaging in deliberate deception.

     I’m going to speak plainly: I think you’ve been the victim of dishonest propaganda, that has been oft-repeated and accepted because it supported what you wanted to be true.

     1Ti 3:16 KJV
     (16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

     The only reason to reject this reading, would be a circular argument that it could not be true. The evidence is overwhelming in favor of theos, that is, God was manifest in the flesh.

     I should have asked you (Jaco) to put something at stake on this challenge. I already did – the accuracy of my entire text would be brought into disrepute with even a single error, or a single spurious text.

     Or maybe you were sincere in this challenge: if you were, what affect does this have on you? What did what did you gamble?

     Jya ne (or translated, “Later…”),
     -Andrew

205. on 09 Feb 2010 at 7:25 pm205 robert

     26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

     “27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.”

     This verse witnesses against her knowing Not a man
     Does this fail you?
     Every woman was expected to be a virgin before marrage and seeing this speaks of conceiving in the future with her husband to be.
     why would she make a false statement like this ?
     I doubt she ever did!!!!!
     Why so much detail of who she was marrying.
     Does this fail you?
     Other than the knowing not a man this story means that GOD would cause conception using Joseph whether through a miracle or Sex in the FUTURE.
     plus what you read as the Holy spirit is not conception its Just GODS POWER CAUSING IT Just as GOD caused Elizabeth to conceive in her old age.

     28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. 38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her

206. on 09 Feb 2010 at 8:26 pm206 robert

     “6) You claimed that the Textus Receptus opposed the virgin birth, but didn’t give any example. I find that hard to believe, since we had Robert protesting that the AV bible was edited to support it.”

     Andrew
     I never claimed the AV was edited, My claim is the HEBREW writings of the NT writers was edited when they were translated to greek to support the beliefs of the translator which at the time(3rd -4th century)was to support the pagan infected religion of Jesus being God..

     The language of the jews of Jesus’s time was hebrew as several early jewish wiriting show. a few would be Josephus, Dead Sea scrolls and even many christian writers of the late 1st and the 2nd century.

207. on 09 Feb 2010 at 8:49 pm207 Andrew Patrick

     Robert,

     If I understand correctly, you are claiming that the gospels were originally written in Hebrew, but all traces of this have been lost, and that the Greek New Testament was practically rewritten, and thus these scriptures are irrevocably compromised, and this happened sometime in the 3rd to 4th century?

     Do you have any evidence to support this?

     So, a question for you: how would Justin Martyr make the argument in 158 AD (to Trypho, the Jew) that Jesus was born of a virgin, if this wasn’t inserted until the 3rd to 4th century, when the [alleged] original Hebrew gospels were translated into Greek?

     Justin also pointed out to Trypho that it would hardly be a sign of the LORD God if a mere “young woman” were to conceive, seeing that this is an everyday event. Trypho did not argue that point.

     Conclusion:

     Your reasoning means that any portion of the New Testament, regardless of translation accuracy or overwhelming manuscript support, can be discarded if it conflicts with “the pagan infected religion of Jesus being God.” This makes it near-impossible to prove anything.

     Jya ne,
     -Andrew

     P.S. I apologize for associating/grouping you and Jaco together: you are, obviously, different people with different perspectives, and such was not fair to either of you.

208. on 09 Feb 2010 at 9:22 pm208 Ray

     Andrew, I think you’re right about the %’s. Maybe it’s best if they were all dropped. Jesus is the Son of God and son of man.

     I do not believe God became a man who died on a cross for the sins of the people, rather I believe Jesus did. God can manifest himself as a man even though he is not a man. God doing so has no bearing on the nature of Christ, for Jesus is as he is whether or not God manifests himself as a man or not.

     Angels are sometimes seen as men even though they have never been human. I believe God can show us what he wants to show us in many ways. He might appear as a man if he wants us to see him in that kind of way, as he appeared to Abraham just before he
     overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. The manner in which God appeared unto Abraham had no bearing on the nature of Christ as Christ really was at that time. Christ was not affected in his nature at all because of his coming to talk to Abraham at that time. That event did not affect who Christ was. Christ was as God is, being in his form as God appeared unto Abraham at that time.

     I do not believe God appearing to Abraham as he did affected the nature of Christ, one way or another. I suppose it could have affected his appearance if he was one of the angels that came with him. I don’t know if Jesus came as one of the two witnessing
     angels God brought with him when he came to visit Abraham at that time or not. I only perceive them as two angels of God that came with God.

     So when someone tells us that God is not a man, are they really making a statement as to the nature of Christ or not? Maybe they were rather speaking about the nature of God.

209. on 09 Feb 2010 at 9:30 pm209 robert

     “So, a question for you: how would Justin Martyr make the argument in 158 AD (to Trypho, the Jew) that Jesus was born of a virgin, if this wasn’t inserted until the 3rd to 4th century, when the [alleged] original Hebrew gospels were translated into Greek?”

     Andrew
     Pagan false doctrines started infecting christiananity as early as the end of the first century and was a big issue for Paul when he converted pagans.

     100 years after the resurection is a very long time for the first mention of a VC but was very common for pagan religions for 1000′s of years before Jesus.

     I cant say where the original Nt writings went or who or when they were translated but the lie that the language of the jews durning Jesus’s time was greek is being disputed by historical evidence. Matthews is mentioned as being written in hebrew starting at the preaching of John the baptist.
     Matthew is an obvious forgery because it is witnessed by early church fathers as not being the original and it uses a bad translation of hebrew to greek. Matthew was suppose to be an inspired apostle and wouldnt of made this mistake..

     I have no problem figuring out the NT using the OT as the basis for context. this is how the early christians figured out what was being preached to them and this method was taught by the apostles and the Bereans were praised for it.
     Did you think they had the NT, the OT is what is called scriptures which Jesus gave testamony to

210. on 09 Feb 2010 at 9:45 pm210 robert

     If I understand correctly, you are claiming that the gospels were originally written in Hebrew, but all traces of this have been lost, and that the Greek New Testament was practically rewritten, and thus these scriptures are irrevocably compromised, and this happened sometime in the 3rd to 4th century?

     Do you have any evidence to support this?

     maybe these do

     Scholars Who Support A Hebrew Original New Testament

     Following is a listing of some linguistic and Biblical authorities who maintain or support a belief in a Hebrew origin of the New Testament:

     Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, third edition, entirety.

     D. Bivin and R. B. Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, entirety.

     E. W. Bullinger, The Companion Bible, Appendix 95.

     Dr. F. C. Burkitt, The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus, pp. 25, 29.

     Prof. C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, entirety.

     Epiphanius, Panarion 29:9:4 on Matthew.

     Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III 24:6 and 39:18; V8:2; VI 25:4.

     Edward Gibbon, History of Christianity, two footnotes on p. 185.

     Dr. Frederick C. Grant, Roman Hellenism and the New Testament, p. 14.

     Dr. George Howard, The Tetragram and the New Testament in Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 96/1 (1977), 63-83. Also, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, entirety.

     Dr. George Lamsa, The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, Introduction, pp. IX-XII.

     Dr. Alfred F. Loisy, The Birth of the Christian Religion and the Origin of the New Testament, pp. 66, 68.

     Dr. Isaac Rabinowitz, Ephphata…in Journal of Semitic Studies vol. XVI (1971), pp. 151-156.

     Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus, pp. 90, 92.

     Hugh J. Schonfield, An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew’s Gospel, (1927) p. 7.

     Dr. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 275.

     R. B. Y. Scott, The Original Language of the Apocalypse, entirety.

     Prof. Charles C. Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church, entirety. Also, Our Translated Gospels, entirety.

     Dr. James Scott Trimm, The Semitic Origin of the New Testament, entirety.

     Max Woolcox, The Semitism of Acts (1965), entirety.

     F. Zimmerman, The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels, entirety.

211. on 09 Feb 2010 at 9:48 pm211 Mark C.

     26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

     “27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.”

     This verse witnesses against her knowing Not a man
     Does this fail you?
     Every woman was expected to be a virgin before marrage and seeing this speaks of conceiving in the future with her husband to be.
     why would she make a false statement like this ?
     I doubt she ever did!!!!!
     Why so much detail of who she was marrying.
     Does this fail you?

     What fails me is your reasoning. How does “a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph” witness against her not knowing a man? It says they were espoused, not married. That means betrothed. It was like being engaged in our culture, but even more of a commitment. But they were not yet married. That’s what “espoused” means. And Matthew corroborates that, as well:
     Matt. 1:
     18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

     Now you may argue that Matthew implies they were married, since the next verses call them husband and wife:

     19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
     20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

     But the word for husband here is aner which means “man” and can refer to any man whether it’s a husband, fiance, or any other relationship. Likewise, the word for wife here is gune which means “woman” and can refer to any woman, whether married or unmarried. Since it specifies that they were “espoused” and it was “before they came together” then Mary was correct when she told the angel she had not known a man.

     In fact, even if you want to argue that they were married, it still says “before they came together” so they’d be newlyweds who had not yet had sex. Yet she was “found with child of the Holy Ghost.” And then in the dream, the angel said, “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” How much clearer could it be?

     This agrees with Luke’s record, where she asks the angel how this would be and he replied, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore [for that very reason] also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

     I realize that this is in the future tense, which you have interpreted before as referring to what he’d be called later. But the use of future tense can obviously be referring to when he would be born as well, which was still future when the angel said this. And since the angel said in Matthew, “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife,” he had obviously not taken her unto him at that point. And yet the angel declared that “that which is conceived in her [already] is of the Holy Ghost.” You can’t get any plainer than that.

     Now if you’re going to argue that the text was corrupted when it was translated from Hebrew to Greek in order to agree with the translator’s doctrine, that’s a whole different issue, and you’re going to have to provide some sort of proof. But the Bible as we have it – even the KJV which you quoted from – clearly tells us that Jesus was conceived by God.

212. on 09 Feb 2010 at 9:52 pm212 Ray

     There was some talk about the Authorized Version of the Bible being inerrent. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out one day that all of our Bibles have some error. Can anyone find a Bible where the generations of Jesus Chirst add up like Matthew Chapter one says
     when we compare all other scripture on those names that appear?

     I can live with an error or two, or even more and still find my way to heaven (Jesus). There’s plenty there to lead me to the knowledge of my sin, my need for salvation, and the atonement of God’s grace. The cross is my ticket to heaven by faith in Jesus.

     There’s a lot of things I know and don’t know that will not keep me from heaven. There is so much I know that will not get me into heaven. There is so much I know that has no value there, likely much more than I know.

213. on 09 Feb 2010 at 10:02 pm213 Mark C.

     Robert,

     I can’t speak for the others in your list, but I do know that neither Bullinger nor Lamsa considered the Greek version of Matthew to be in error. There are a number of people who believe that most if not all of the NT was originally written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. That has been debated. But as one who has held this belief in the past I can tell you that we never considered the Greek to be in error. In fact we believed that the Greek was translated very soon after the Aramaic originals, not 100 or more years later. It was put into Greek because that was the most commonly spoken language throughout the Roman world at the time.

     Can you provide specific citations that prove that the Greek Gospels were corrupted when translated from Hebrew?

214. on 09 Feb 2010 at 10:29 pm214 robert

     “What fails me is your reasoning. How does “a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph” witness against her not knowing a man? It says they were espoused, not married. That means betrothed. It was like being engaged in our culture, but even more of a commitment. But they were not yet married. That’s what “espoused” means. ”

     Being married or unmarried makes no difference , Her conception in luke was a FUTURE ACT and whether she had known a man sexually is not even on the table. At the time of this story she wasnt pregnant. So the context of not knowing a man wasnt a sexual subject and couldnt be if you understand.

     THIS FLAT OUT DOESNT FIT THE WHOLE STORY.

     The original Matthew in Hebrew didnt even have a birth narrative

     The Gospel According to the Hebrews

     This is on a different level from all the other books we have to deal with. It was a divergent yet not heretical form of our Gospel according to St. Matthew. Even to sketch the controversies which have raged about it is impracticable here. What may be regarded as established is that it existed in either Hebrew or Aramaic, and was used by a Jewish Christian sect who were known as Nazaraeans (Nazarenes), and that it resembled our Matthew closely enough to have been regarded as the original Hebrew of that Gospel. I believe few, if any, would now contend that it was that original. It is generally, and I believe rightly, looked upon as a secondary document. What was the extent of the additions to or omissions from Matthew we do not know: but two considerations must be mentioned bearing on this: (1) The Stichometry of Nicephorus assigns it 2,200 lines, 300 less than Matthew. This figure, if correct, means that a good deal was left out. (2) If the Oxyrhynchus Sayings (see post) are really, as competent schoalrs think, extracts from it, we must suppose a large quantity of additional matter: for we have but two rather brief fragments of that collection of sayings, and eight out of thirteen sayings are either not represented in the canonical text, or differ widely therefrom.

     Jerome (340-420 AD) tells us

     “Matthew,30 also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Messiah at first published in Judea in Hebrew31 for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library. at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described [some translators render "copied"] to me by the Nazarenes32 of Beroea,33 a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew

215. on 09 Feb 2010 at 10:59 pm215 robert

     Some scholars have proposed that the Jews lost their Hebrew language, replacing it with Aramaic during the Babylonian captivity. The error of this position becomes obvious. The Jewish people had spent 400 years in captivity in Egypt yet they did not stop speaking Hebrew and begin speaking Egyptian, why should they exchange Hebrew for Aramaic after only seventy years in Babylonian captivity? Upon return from the Babylonian captivity it was realized that a small minority could not speak “the language of Judah” so drastic measures were taken to abolish these marriages and maintain the purity of the Jewish people and language One final evidence rests in the fact that the post-captivity books (Zech., Hag., Mal., Neh., Ezra, and Ester) are written in 98% Hebrew rather than Aramaic.

     Some scholars have also suggested that under the Helene Empire Jews lost their Semitic language and in their rush to hellenize, began speaking Greek. The books of the Maccabees do record an attempt by Antiochus Epiphanies to forcibly Hellenize the Jewish people. In response, the Jews formed an army led by Judas Maccabee This army defeated the Greeks and eradicated Hellenism for a time. Those who claim that the Jews were Hellenized and began speaking Greek at this time seem to deny the historical fact of the Maccabean success.

     During the first century, Hebrew remained the language of the Jews living in Judah and to a lesser extent in Galilee. Aramaic remained a secondary language and the language of commerce. Most jews at this time did not speak Greek, in fact one tradition had it that it was better to feed ones children swine than to teach them the Greek language. It was only with the permission of authorities that a young official could learn Greek, and then, solely for the purpose of political discourse on the National level. The Greek language was completely inaccessible and undesirable to the vast majority of Jews in Israel in the 1st century. Any gauge of Greek language outside of Israel cannot, nor can any evidence hundreds of years removed from the 1st century, alter the fact that the Jews of Israel in the 1st century did not know Greek.

     The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-c.100 C.E.) testifies to the fact that Hebrew was the language of first century Jews. Moreover, he testifies that Hebrew, and not Greek, was the language of his place and time. Josephus gives us the only first hand account of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. According to Josephus, the Romans had to have him translate the call to the Jews to surrender into “their own language” (Wars 5:9:2) . Josephus gives us a point-blank statement regarding the language of his people during his time:

     I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning

     of the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek

     language although I have so long accustomed myself to speak

     our own language, that I cannot pronounce Greek with

     sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those

     that learn the languages of many nations. (Ant. 20:11:2)

     Thus, Josephus makes it clear that first century Jews could not even speak or understand Greek, but spoke “their own language.”
     Confirmation of Josephus’s claims has been found by Archaeologists. The Bar Kokhba coins are one example. These coins were struck by Jews during the Bar Kokhba revolt (c. 132 C.E.). All of these coins bear only Hebrew inscriptions. Countless other inscriptions found at excavations of the Temple Mount, Masada and various Jewish tombs, have revealed first century Hebrew inscriptions. Even more profound evidence that Hebrew was a living language during the first century may be found in ancient Documents from about that time, which have been discovered in Israel. These include the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Bar Kokhba letters.

     The Dead Sea Scrolls consist of over 40,000 fragments of more than 500 scrolls dating from 250 B.C.E . to 70 C.E.. Theses Scrolls are primarily in Hebrew and Aramaic. A large number of the “secular scrolls” (those which are not Bible manuscripts) are in Hebrew.

     The Bar Kokhba letters are letters between Simon Bar Kokhba and his army, written during the Jewish revolt of 132 C.E.. These letters were discovered by Yigdale Yadin in 1961 and are almost all written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Two of the letters are written in Greek, both were written by men with Greek names to Bar Kokhba. One of the two Greek letters actually apologizes for writing to Bar Kokhba in Greek, saying “the letter is written in Greek, as we have no one who knows Hebrew here.”

     The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bar Kokhba letters not only include
     first and second century Hebrew documents, but give an even more significant evidence in the dialect of that Hebrew. The dialect of these documents was not the Biblical Hebrew of the Old Testament, nor was it the Mishnaic Hebrew of the Mishna (c. 220 C.E.). The Hebrew of these documents is colloquial, it is a fluid
     living language in a state of flux somewhere in the evolutionary
     process from Biblical to Mishnaic Hebrew. Moreover, the Hebrew of the Bar Kokhba letters represents Galilean Hebrew (Bar Kokhba was a Galilean) , while the Dead Sea Scrolls give us an example of Judean Hebrew. Comparing the documents shows a living distinction of geographic dialect as well, a sure sign that Hebrew was not a dead language.

     Final evidence that first century Jews conversed in Hebrew and
     Aramaic can be found in other documents of the period, and even
     later. These include: the Roll Concerning Fasts in Aramaic (66-70
     C.E.), The Letter of Gamaliel in Aramaic (c. 30 – 110 C.E.), Wars of the Jews by Josephus in Hebrew (c. 75 C.E.), the Mishna in Hebrew (c. 220 C.E.) and the Gemara in Aramaic (c. 500 C.E.)

216. on 09 Feb 2010 at 11:57 pm216 Andrew Patrick

     Dear Ray,

     You wrote:

     There was some talk about the Authorized Version of the Bible being inerrent. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out one day that all of our Bibles have some error. Can anyone find a Bible where the generations of Jesus Chirst add up like Matthew Chapter one says when we compare all other scripture on those names that appear?

     I’m not aware of any chronology errors in the Bible. I do know of a few spots that seem difficult, but none that could only be explained by contradiction. Would you like to explain your question/concern?

     By the way – If you feel like it, I’m still interested in how you might respond to the set of questions on post 141… (I’ll stop asking otherwise.)

     Jya ne,
     -Andrew

217. on 10 Feb 2010 at 12:11 am217 robert

     “Justin also pointed out to Trypho that it would hardly be a sign of the LORD God if a mere “young woman” were to conceive, seeing that this is an everyday event. Trypho did not argue that point.”

     Andrew
     I havent read this but here just might be the weak reasoning that brought the pagan VC into christianity. eventdently He was aware of it saying young woman not virgin but couldnt compete with the pagans religion without making it atleast an equal miracle

218. on 10 Feb 2010 at 12:13 am218 Andrew Patrick

     Dear Robert [post 215],

     I don’t think anyone is contesting that the Jews spoke Hebrew. I think our sticking point is the lack of hard evidence that the gospel of Matthew was corrupted before it (and I paraphrase) “hit the streets in Greek in the 3rd or 4th century.”

     Mat 5:18 KJV
     (18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

     In the meantime, I’m going to accept the gospel of Matthew as genuine. It would be especially ironic if Jesus either 1) never made that statement, or 2) couldn’t keep that promise.

     And even if Jesus was not specifically talking about the gospel of Matthew at that time, the same principle certainly seems to apply. Similar promises can be found in Psalm 12:6-7 and Isaiah 40:8: God’s words are pure, he will keep his words from the wicked generation.

     Psa 138:2 KJV
     (2) I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

     One more note: when Jesus said, “Search the scriptures, for they testify of me” (John 5:39) he was talking about the Old Testament, but the apostles also considered Paul’s writings to be scripture as well.

     2Pe 3:16 KJV
     (16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

     It would seem strange for God to only guarantee the preservation of the Hebrew scriptures, and to forsake the Greek New Testament, especially considering the warning of Revelation 22:18-19 (Jesus considered that book to be very important!)

     Take care,
     -Andrew

219. on 10 Feb 2010 at 12:38 am219 Mark C.

     Being married or unmarried makes no difference ,

     Weren’t you saying that Luke 1:27 witnesses against her not knowing a man? That verse says she was espoused to a man whose name was Joseph. If being married or unmarried makes no difference, how does this verse witness against her not having known a man?

     Her conception in luke was a FUTURE ACT and whether she had known a man sexually is not even on the table. At the time of this story she wasnt pregnant…

     The record in Matthew clearly tells us that “before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” and the angel told Joseph, “fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” Clearly present tense, and clearly she was pregnant.

     …So the context of not knowing a man wasnt a sexual subject and couldnt be if you understand.

     What do you think she meant by “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” when the angel said she would have a child, if it wasn’t a sexual subject?

     The original Matthew in Hebrew didnt even have a birth narrative

     Do you have evidence of this? As Andrew pointed out, there is no question about whether the Jews spoke Hebrew. The question is whether our current Gospel of Matthew was corrupted in the translation from Hebrew.

220. on 10 Feb 2010 at 1:25 am220 robert

     Her conception in luke was a FUTURE ACT and whether she had known a man sexually is not even on the table. At the time of this story she wasnt pregnant…

     “The record in Matthew clearly tells us that “before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” and the angel told Joseph, “fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” Clearly present tense, and clearly she was pregnant.”

     No Mark
     Lukes shows her conception as a future event.
     Stop trying to mix the 2 .
     when she was told she WOULD conceive she was ingage to Joseph.So the first way that would of come to mind about her future conception would of been with Joseph her future husband.
     So it would of been a lie to say she didnt know a man who could get her pregnant and is a statement that doesnt make sense whatsoever within the story..
     Matthew doesnt make sense if you actually read Isaiah 7 forward. If there was a virgin conception it was 700 years before Jesus’ birth but the true hebrew OT witnesses against it being a Jesus the messiah prophecy. whoever wrote this part of Matthew was not inspired by God and wasnt a Jew who could read hebrew so he mistakenly added something that wasnt supported within the scriptures.
     this put this part of Matthew as an added part by a greek, there are other problems in the first part of Matthew that OT prophecy doesnt support like him Going to egypt which Luke also dont support, the geneolgy and a few others

221. on 10 Feb 2010 at 2:07 am221 Xavier

     Regarding the topic of whether or not Jesus is human, or half-human or some type of “new human” due to his miraculous conception. Has anyone noticed the Biblical precedent for YHWH’s involvement in the miraculous conception and birth of other OT characters like Isaac, and Samson?

     Samson’s case is especially valid to this argument since there are many similarities between his birth and that of Jesus’.

     My point being, just because YHWH is involved in the conception/birth process of certain individuals does not make them anymore or less “human” than the rest of the human race. Yet, by deifnition, they are “unique” due to the way they came into existence. i.e. Samson’s great strength.

222. on 10 Feb 2010 at 2:09 am222 Mark C.

     So it would of been a lie to say she didnt know a man who could get her pregnant and is a statement that doesnt make sense whatsoever within the story..

     And yet it is there in the Gospel of Luke. So do you believe that Luke’s Gospel has errors in it too? Sounds like God did a poor job of preserving His Word if what you say is true.

     Matthew doesnt make sense if you actually read Isaiah 7 forward. If there was a virgin conception it was 700 years before Jesus’ birth but the true hebrew OT witnesses against it being a Jesus the messiah prophecy.

     Many prophecies in the OT had dual fulfillment, one immediate, and one ultimate, referring to Messiah. For example, the prophecy of David’s offspring was immediately fulfilled in Solomon, but also ultimately referred to the Messiah. There are many examples of this.

223. on 10 Feb 2010 at 2:13 am223 Mark C.

     My point being, just because YHWH is involved in the conception/birth process of certain individuals does not make them anymore or less “human” than the rest of the human race. Yet, by deifnition, they are “unique” due to the way they came into existence. i.e. Samson’s great strength.

     Yes, there are a number of instances in which God miraculously enabled a couple to conceive – Abraham and Sarah, Zacharias and Elisabeth (John the Baptist’s parents), etc. But only Jesus is said to be conceived by God by way of His Holy Spirit.

224. on 10 Feb 2010 at 2:23 am224 Andrew Patrick

     Robert wrote:

     I havent read this but here just might be the weak reasoning that brought the pagan VC into christianity. eventdently He was aware of it saying young woman not virgin but couldnt compete with the pagans religion without making it atleast an equal miracle

     Are we talking about the same Justin? Spreading Paganism?

     Justin Martyr, from “Address to the Greeks”:

     … why do we any longer endure those unbelieving and dangerous arguments, and fail to see that we are retrograding when we listen to such an argument as this: that the soul is immortal, …? For this we used to hear from Pythagoras and Plato … before we learned the truth.”

     In the second century, the Jews were specifically denying Christ, and not above falsely teaching from the scriptures to “protect” their culture. They even taught that Isaiah 9:6 was fulfilled with Solomon or King Hezekiah (an equally silly argument, as Justin pointed out.)

     The point is, that the argument that the “almah” of Isaiah 7:14 meant “a young woman who had sex with a man” instead of “virgin” was not considered a serious argument in the 2nd century, and that was over 1800 years ago. It’s just a very old Jewish propaganda.

     2Co 3:12-15 KJV
     (12) Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
     (13) And not as Moses, whicoh put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
     (14) But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
     (15) But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

     I’ve gotten the impression that you trust Paul’s writings. Paul said that the Jews do not understand the Old Testament, because of their hearts.

     Gal 4:4 KJV
     (4) But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

     Paul specifically emphasizes “made of a woman” as if this is an important point…

     Mark wrote to Robert:

     Do you have evidence of this? As Andrew pointed out, there is no question about whether the Jews spoke Hebrew. The question is whether our current Gospel of Matthew was corrupted in the translation from Hebrew.

     God created our original language, founded the languages at Babel, wasn’t stopped when Moses destroyed “the originals” of the Ten Commandments or when King Jehoiakim burnt his scroll, and granted the miracle of tongues to the early church in Acts.

     Isa 40:8 KJV
     (8) The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

     It doesn’t matter to me if Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew or Greek: that’s a moot point. If God meant for the gospel of Matthew to be transmitted in Hebrew, it would have been preserved in Hebrew instead of Greek.

     And if Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and God meant it to be translated into Greek (or any chosen language) he certainly has the power to inspire the translation and spread it across all nations.

     Take care,
     -Andrew

     P.S. The net effect of these “scripture doubting” arguments gets in the way of any biblical resolution. Jaco (for some reason) thought that he had good support for protesting against God (theos) in 1 Timothy 3:16, i.e. “God was manifest in the flesh.”

     [see post 204 for the answer to Jaco's challenge]

     God can preserve his word, he certainly has the power, and he’s made the promises, and he has the means, motive, method, and opportunity: God wrote the Old Testament in Hebrew, spread the New Testament in Greek, and gave it to the whole world in English.

     So many of the objections I’ve seen on this blog forum depend upon the “we can translate the Bible better” presumption or the “let’s find a translation that understands Unitarianism” methods, and thus “difficult scriptures” like 1 Timothy 3:16 can be discarded and plain statements by Jesus of “I am the beginning and the end” can be rationalized away until nothing is left.

     I would love for this blog to get back onto its original subject, but it seems that first we have to go back to the very basics: is the Bible actually inspired? Is it preserved? Has God actually provided us with an accurate Bible free from error?

     Until that is agreed upon, nothing can ever be settled, because the losing side will always fall back to “That shouldn’t be in there.”

225. on 10 Feb 2010 at 3:26 am225 Xavier

     Mark C.

     But only Jesus is said to be conceived by God by way of His Holy Spirit.

     So what does this make Jesus? I mean, can he legitimately be part of the human race as such, or what?

226. on 10 Feb 2010 at 9:54 am226 Mark C.

     Xavier,

     I explained that in my post above. He is the Son of God and the Son of man. He’s human, but a unique human born of God. He’s the first of the new breed that will populate the coming Kingdom; the second Adam.

227. on 10 Feb 2010 at 10:34 am227 Joseph

     Mark, what do you mean by “new breed.” Can you site references in the OT.

228. on 10 Feb 2010 at 10:48 am228 Ray

     One doesn’t have to be a theologist to understand that “the thing” or “what was manifest” in the flesh was a mystery of godliness and that holy thing is Jesus. (I Timothy 3:16)

     The scripture doesn’t speak of the Father being manifest in the flesh unless it speaks of Jesus, whether hidden or revealed, for Jesus was in the world before he was manifest in the flesh (born of a woman) and those who were led to God by him walked on this earth as sons of God, even before the days of Noah.

     I don’t think it’s wrong to think of Jesus as “the mystery of Godliness” mentioned in I Timothy 4:16.

     If we allow it to be paraphrazed we could say that “Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness which was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, ..” etc.

     My KJV says “God” was manifest in the flesh, but I know it speaks of Jesus, the mystery of godliness.

     I still do not believe God became a man who died on a cross for my sins (except that there may be some kind of figurative sense about this as he is so connected to his son as a loving fathers has been known to be in this world) but rather, that Jesus was the one sent by God for that work of our salvation being in God and God in him.

     Jesus did it, therefore God highly exhaulted him giving him a place of honor which is even greater than he had with him before he came into this world, into the womb of a loving Jewish mother.

     Maybe the place of honor is the same as he had with God in the beginning, but it seems to me that the honor itself can now be greater than ever before, as more and more souls are being saved by him, his word enduring forever and his work of salvation also, by the same God who sent him.

229. on 10 Feb 2010 at 11:51 am229 Xavier

     Mark C.

     But no one else will be created in the same way he was though, so how will those who “populate the coming Kingdom” will be anything like he is?

230. on 10 Feb 2010 at 12:38 pm230 robert

     Andrew wrote
     “Are we talking about the same Justin? Spreading Paganism?”

     Andrew
     wasnt it you that posted this

     “Justin also pointed out to Trypho that it would hardly be a sign of the LORD God if a mere “young woman” were to conceive, seeing that this is an everyday event. Trypho did not argue that point

     Why was the issue of a “young woman” even being discussed by them?
     Its because there was an issue with it at the time and their conclusion was based on their belief not the facts!
     False pagan doctrines were infecting christianity during Paul preaching.

     There is no way the greek translations of Hebrew writers can be called divinely inspired or can be said to be 100% accurate. Only the originals can be claimed that.
     as we see from the english translations where None are completely 100% in agreement there is personal beliefs that influence a translation.why should the Hebrew to greek translations be held by a different standard.

     Mat 5:18 KJV
     (18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

     Andrew
     this is speaking of GODS LAW

     Mark wrote
     “But only Jesus is said to be conceived by God by way of His Holy Spirit. ”

     Show me the exact wording for this anywhere in the bible.
     YOU CANT
     you can only give me what you think it means.

     Andrew wrote
     ” Has God actually provided us with an accurate Bible free from error?”

     Maybe God gave us commons sense for a reason.
     YES to be a Berean and to prove with the OT scriptures that what being preach is the Word of God

231. on 10 Feb 2010 at 1:17 pm231 robert

     Andrew wrote

     “I’ve gotten the impression that you trust Paul’s writings. Paul said that the Jews do not understand the Old Testament, because of their hearts.”

     Andrew
     The jews that are spoke of here are the one who didnt accept that Jesus was the one that cast the shadows of the sacraficial laws.
     He cast the shadow of the sacraficial lamb, of the high priest and of the First fruit of the harvest.
     While the Temple was only a shadow of the Body of Christ where Jesus is only the head.
     these were the changes the new coventant made which are the law for righteousness which can be done no other way after Jesus assumed them.
     while many were righteous by the law like these verses state

     ” 5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless”

     and Paul also states about himself before Jesus assuming this role which is the only way to have a sin sacrafice to the high priest for righteousness.
     so faith in this change is the key to salvation.
     without the law then we wouldnt be compelled to look to this way because without the law there would be no sin identified.
     Just remember its only a one time sacrafice unlike the yearly one of the former.

     Just because Zacharias, Elisabeth and Paul were righteous before God doesnt mean they didnt sin, it just means they used the law for righteousness for what it was meant for.

232. on 10 Feb 2010 at 1:26 pm232 Ray

     Robert, I think Mark has it right about the conception of Jesus, that of all men, his being begotten of God by his spirit is unique as pertaining to the flesh.

     No other man has been conceived in the womb of a virgin that way.

     I think I can go so far as to say that I do not believe any other man has been born of a woman without a human being’s contribution, something that came from a male human being’s body.

     I believe the “sons of God” were those men that walked with God (as Enoch for a good example of this)
     in Genesis 5&6 rather than angels as some have said.

233. on 10 Feb 2010 at 1:46 pm233 robert

     Ray
     I understand that you believe that, But Mark always ask for proof but only gives his interpretation as proof.
     Perfect proof would be word for word.
     Other than that the best that it can be is an educated guess which in many cases is enough but not in this case.
     “Made of a woman” just states he was made the same way all man are, that he is HUMAN.

     My Jesus was born the son of Abraham,David and JOSEPH and was reborn as the Son of God at his ressurection as we all might get to be someday

234. on 10 Feb 2010 at 2:02 pm234 Mark C.

     Mark wrote
     “But only Jesus is said to be conceived by God by way of His Holy Spirit. ”

     Show me the exact wording for this anywhere in the bible.
     YOU CANT
     you can only give me what you think it means.

     I showed it to you, but you claim it wasn’t in the original. Since you have no evidence of that, it remains an unprovable argument.

235. on 10 Feb 2010 at 2:10 pm235 robert

     “I showed it to you, but you claim it wasn’t in the original”

     Show it word for word as you wrote it within any writing or translation you hold as 100% accurate.
     You cant.
     your right it unprovable either way which is my point.
     I hang my salvation on provable things not just beliefs

236. on 10 Feb 2010 at 2:31 pm236 Mark C.

     Mark, what do you mean by “new breed.” Can you site references in the OT.

     Not from the OT – it wasn’t revealed there. They only knew of Messiah restoring Israel. But the NT reveals that the kingdom will include the whole world, and we will be like him and rule with him. And we are called “to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29).  This is also why he is called the “last Adam” (I Cor. 15:45).

     But no one else will be created in the same way he was though, so how will those who “populate the coming Kingdom” will be anything like he is?

     We are members of his body and we will be raised from the dead like he was (except those that are alive when he returns, who will be changed). He is called “the firstborn of every creature” in Col. 1:15, “the beginning, the firstborn from the dead” in Col. 1:18, and the firstborn among many brethren (Rom. 8:29, above). We are to be conformed to his image (II Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:10) but he himself remains uniquely conceived of God.

237. on 10 Feb 2010 at 2:36 pm237 Mark C.

     Show it word for word as you wrote it within any writing or translation you hold as 100% accurate.
     You cant.

     I can and I did. Reread comments 211 and 219. The quotes are word for word from Matthew and Luke.

     your right it unprovable either way which is my point.
     I hang my salvation on provable things not just beliefs

     What I said was unprovable was your claim that the Gospel of Matthew was corrupted when translated into Geek, and specifically that the Hebrew version had no birth account. There is no evidence of that.

238. on 10 Feb 2010 at 2:46 pm238 robert

     Show it word for word as you wrote it within any writing or translation you hold as 100% accurate.
     You cant.

     I can and I did. Reread comments 211 and 219. The quotes are word for word from Matthew and Luke.

     Mark you claimed it said conceived BY God
     the conception of me in my mothers womb was of God too but it wasnt by GOD nor is it ever stated that Jesus was conceived BY GOD.

     So you see it is only your unproven belief that you hang your salvation on.

239. on 10 Feb 2010 at 3:19 pm239 Mark C.

     Mark you claimed it said conceived BY God
     the conception of me in my mothers womb was of God too but it wasnt by GOD nor is it ever stated that Jesus was conceived BY GOD.

     First of all, in what sense is your conception in your mother’s womb “of God?”

     Second, the word translated “of” in those verses is the Greek preposition ek which Strong’s defines as “a primary preposition denoting origin.” It is translated of, from, out of, by, and a few other words.

     But even without knowing the Greek, it is simple and logical in English. The angel tells Mary she’s going to conceive, and Mary asks, “How, since I haven’t known a man?” The angel tells her the Holy Spirit would come upon her. Then in Matthew we read that “before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Then the angel tells Joseph, “fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” If the angel said she’d conceive when the Holy Spirit came over her, and then she was found with child before she and Joseph came together, and the angel told Joseph to take Mary (so they hadn’t come together yet) because “that which IS CONCEIVED is of the Holy Spirit,” then who do you think is the father? You claim it’s just my interpretation. But what other interpretation could anyone possibly get from these verses?

     So you see it is only your unproven belief that you hang your salvation on.

     I never said I hang my salvation on it. The Bible doesn’t say we must believe in the virgin conception in order to be saved (lucky for you! ) It would have been hard to prove the virgin conception back then, since there were no witnesses to the angel’s announcement or the conception. Salvation depends on confessing Jesus as Lord and believing God raised him from the dead. The resurrection did have many witnesses. However, salvation aside, today we have the Gospel accounts which tell us how Jesus was conceived.

240. on 10 Feb 2010 at 3:21 pm240 Joseph

     Mark,

     Not from the OT – it wasn’t revealed there. They only knew of Messiah restoring Israel. But the NT reveals that the kingdom will include the whole world, and we will be like him and rule with him.

     According to Zechariah 14:16-18, Gentiles are said to be worshiping Sukkot with Jews in the Messianic Kingdom.

     And we are called “to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29). This is also why he is called the “last Adam” (I Cor. 15:45).

     To be honest, I don’t really make claims to the truth on this subject. I think that by Christ being called the second Adam reflects his Human nature being created by an act of God, not by being a literal Son of God, as if God has only two “biological” Sons, Jesus and Adam. If we were to follow along that logic then Adam could be considered the Son of God more so than Christ, and Christ would be considered a half-breed, being that he had an earthly Mother. In other words if Adam was created full man without the use of a sperm, who is to say that Christ wasn’t created in the womb of Mary without the use of a sperm? Or, who is to say that it wasn’t the sperm of Joseph that God used?

241. on 10 Feb 2010 at 3:27 pm241 Joseph

     To make things more confusing, Christ is said to have used the bloodline of Joseph and Mary. If he were God’s literal kin, then why is Jesus using Joseph’s bloodline? Jesus would have no relation to Joseph other than him being a Stepfather.

     Thoughts?

242. on 10 Feb 2010 at 3:46 pm242 Mark C.

     In other words if Adam was created full man without the use of a sperm, who is to say that Christ wasn’t created in the womb of Mary without the use of a sperm? Or, who is to say that it wasn’t the sperm of Joseph that God used?

     Christ may well have been created in Mary without the use of a sperm. All we’re told is that Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t go into physiological details. Matthew combined with Luke clearly indicate that Mary was with child without Joseph.

     To make things more confusing, Christ is said to have used the bloodline of Joseph and Mary. If he were God’s literal kin, then why is Jesus using Joseph’s bloodline? Jesus would have no relation to Joseph other than him being a Stepfather.

     Thoughts?

     Where does it say Christ used the bloodline of Joseph?

243. on 10 Feb 2010 at 4:17 pm243 Joseph

     Excuse me, his genealogy is traced through Joseph. Or, was that the Father of Mary they are talking about, as I realize there are two Josephs?

244. on 10 Feb 2010 at 4:19 pm244 Andrew Patrick

     Dear Joseph,

     Joseph wrote:

     To make things more confusing, Christ is said to have used the bloodline of Joseph and Mary. If he were God’s literal kin, then why is Jesus using Joseph’s bloodline? Jesus would have no relation to Joseph other than him being a Stepfather.

     Jesus was not of Joseph’s bloodline. He was of Joseph’s legal line to inherit the throne, through King Solomon, but not the biological line, due to the nature of his conception. Mary was of the biological line of King David from his son Nathan. Heli was Mary’s father, and Joseph’s father-in-law (by marriage.)

     I’ve been watching this conversation for a while. Jesus was not a new species of man. He came in the same type of flesh as everyone else.

     Ray wrote [228]:

     The scripture doesn’t speak of the Father being manifest in the flesh unless it speaks of Jesus,

     1) Adam walked and talked in the garden with God, and God made footsteps.

     2) Abraham prepared food and served it to God to eat. Abraham paid tithes to Melchizadek who were are told is without beginning or ending of days, possessing eternal life.

     3) Jacob wrestled a man all night, and God later speaks and confirms that he had appeared to Jacob that night.

     4) Moses talked face to face with God, who inscribed the tablets with his finger!

     5) Joshua met the captain of the host of the LORD, who told him to remove his shoes, for he stood on holy ground, just as when God spoke to Moses from the burning bush.

     Ray wrote:

     My KJV says “God” was manifest in the flesh, but I know it speaks of Jesus, the mystery of godliness… I still do not believe God became a man

     Then you don’t believe the words of that Bible. Do you want to protest that “ancient and more accurate manuscripts” all agree that “God” doesn’t belong in that verse? See post 204. The manuscript evidence overwhelmingly supported the Received Text and the Authorized Version.

     [Mark, maybe you should take a look at post 204, also.]

     robert wrote:

     Show it word for word as you wrote it within any writing or translation you hold as 100% accurate.

     Authorized King James translation, 1769 printing, 100% accurate, every book, every verse, every word, every punctuation mark.

     1Ti 3:16 KJV
     (16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

     Ray wrote: [228]

     If we allow it to be paraphrazed we could say that “Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness which was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, ..” etc.

     We are no longer allowing it to be paraphrased. You’re using your own paraphrase to form an entirely different doctrine. Paul wrote the words, “God was manifest in the flesh” so let’s consider for a moment that maybe he meant exactly what he said.

     Preemptively, I’ll caution that an argument of “Paul couldn’t have possibly meant that because Jews didn’t believe that is an example of circular reasoning.

     1Ti 3:16 KJV
     (16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

     Why would Paul say “without controversy” if he was just paraphrasing, or didn’t mean it, or if this was a subject that was up for debate?

     Ray wrote:

     My KJV says “God” was manifest in the flesh, but I know it speaks of Jesus, the mystery of godliness.

     I wish you’d listen to what you’re saying: you get it right for a brief instant, and then deny your own words. God was manifest in the flesh. We called him Jesus!

     Ray wrote:

     I still do not believe God became a man

     Mar 9:24 KJV
     (24) And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

     How else would you expect Paul to try to tell you that “God was manifest in the flesh?” Do you want him to beg and plead? He already said that it was “without controversy” and even admitted that it might be hard for some people to understand … “great is the mystery” …

     Paul also equates God and Christ in Ephesians 4:8, where he cites Psalm 68, which speaks to God, the LORD God, and the God of our Salvation.

     David wrote:

     Psa 68:16-18 KJV
     (16) Why leap ye, ye high hills? this is the hill which God desireth to dwell in; yea, the LORD will dwell in it for ever.
     (17) The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place.
     (18) Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them.

     Now watch this smooth statement of equivalence: where the Old Testament says Lord and God and LORD God and God of our Salvation, Paul says this is the same as he that descended into the earth (do I have to say the name?)

     Paul wrote:

     Eph 4:8-10 KJV
     (8) Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
     (9) (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
     (10) He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

     Manuscript evidence questions are easy: time consuming, but easy. I can prove my text on any given point, but I do not have time to fight against a million challenges. Past a certain level of proof, you are expected to be able to take the rest on faith.

     However, past this, you’re going to have to reach a decision:

     1) After proving the text, surrender yourself and believe the actual words of the Bible, where-ever that takes you.

     2) Reject the inspiration of the Bible, substituting your own theories or paraphrases. Believe what you want.

     I’m hoping that you will select option (1) one.

     1Ti 3:16 KJV
     (16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

     We’ve already proved that text. You said you realized that “God” meant “Jesus” but you didn’t believe that God actually meant Jesus, and you didn’t believe that God was actually manifest in the flesh.

     Ask me whatever question you like: but if I’m not allowed to prove anything from the actual words of scripture, I might as well not bother.

     One God, One Father, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, the creator of all things, who manifested himself in the flesh and called himself Jesus, and is returning to judge the world.

     Take care,
     -Andrew

245. on 10 Feb 2010 at 4:29 pm245 Sean

     Sorry to drop in like this. I have not had time to keep up on this conversation due to school demands, but I just noticed Andrew Patrick using 1 Tim. 3.16 as evidence for Jesus being God. This is something I posted on a while back.

     click here to read my blog post about this

     The KJV used a corrupted manuscript in which the scribe accidentally misread ΘC for ΟC (God for Who). This is a well-known fact which is corrected in all modern translations (except the NKJV) since they are based on much better (older) manuscripts.

246. on 10 Feb 2010 at 4:54 pm246 Jaco

     Andrew,

     Can we direct the 1 Tim 3:16 issue to Sean’s article? If you agree, I’ll reply to it there.

     I’ll wait for your response,

     Jaco

247. on 10 Feb 2010 at 6:04 pm247 Mark C.

     I’ve been watching this conversation for a while. Jesus was not a new species of man. He came in the same type of flesh as everyone else.

     I’m not saying he’s a new species, just that he is a unique type of man, being conceived by God rather than a human father. The horse/donkey analogy was just illustrating the concept of him being the son of two different entities – God and man – in response to the claim that if God had a son it wouldn’t be human.

248. on 10 Feb 2010 at 6:54 pm248 robert

     23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

     If Mary was of the House of David then Luke would of had no problem stating it as he did with Elisabeth

     5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. Mary was probably a daughter of Aaron too but we have no proof of it but have proof that Jesus was Davids son through Joseph’s Bloodline.

     Considering punctuation in greek the translator could put a comma where he decided.
     so lets make sense of “being as was supposed”

     23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age being as was supposed ,the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

     It was supposed he was about 30.
     ” which was the son of Heli,”
     where does this read SON IN LAW
     Wouldnt Luke know this?
     there is no reason why Luke would not report this accurately

     Matthews geneology was obviously inserted by someone who didnt understand that through that line was an impossibilty for Jesus to be the King which wasnt the first time they were mistaken when they wrote the first 2 chapters of Matthew themselfs.

     I dont accept things that dont fit and you translated to fit your belief.
     your claim makes Luke not much of an historian

     There were thousands of Marys and Josephs and Jesus’ real name was also very common.
     The fact is Joseph is only mention as the Son of David to show Jesus did in fact come from the FLESH OF DAVID which no type of an adoption ever can provide. without it He was the Messiah because there is no other way for this prophecy to happen

249. on 10 Feb 2010 at 6:55 pm249 Andrew Patrick

     Dear Sean,

     This particular blog has gotten messy. I don’t blame you for not being able to keep up with it.

     Sean wrote:

     The KJV used a corrupted manuscript in which the scribe accidentally misread ΘC for ΟC (God for Who). This is a well-known fact which is corrected in all modern translations (except the NKJV) since they are based on much better (older) manuscripts.

     “A” corrupted manuscript, as in one manuscript? There are hundreds of Greek texts (99%+) supporting “Theos” in 1 Timothy 3:16, as in, the overwhelming majority of the Greek text.

     Or is that “A” as in Alexandrius, a manuscript that has been so handled that it’s practically fallen to pieces by now? (We have to rely upon witness testimony because the letters keep fading…)

     I’ll copy my “manuscript evidence post 204″ on Sean’s “1 Timothy 3:16″ thread, and that can work as a starting point.

     Take care,
     -Andrew

250. on 10 Feb 2010 at 7:04 pm250 Ray

     Andrew, I do not believe God became a man who died on a cross for the sins of the world.

     Does that say that I do not believe God showed himself to Abraham as a man? No it does not.

     I believe God showed himself to Abraham in the form of a man. That does not contradict what I said about the fact that I do not believe God became a man who died on a cross.

     I do not believe the man who talked to Abraham was the Lord Jesus. I believe it was God the Father. I could be wrong on that. If it was Jesus who came to Abraham and talked to him just before he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, then I am wrong, but for now I assume it to be the Lord God, the Father of Jesus, and all who believe in Christ to have been one of the men who appeared unto Abraham at that time.

     Because Jesus is as God is, and he walked by the Spirit of God, doing the things of God as God showed him to do, we can perceive
     that God was manifest in Jesus, even though it was not God who died on the cross, but rather it was Jesus, his only begotten Son.

     And I believe Adam was not begotton of God but rather was formed out of the dust of the earth. Yet Jesus is called the last Adam as he is the last “man” God will have. All those in heaven are there because they were found to be in Christ the last Adam. Nothing in heaven lives in Adam the first except Jesus. I do believe Adam is in heaven. I’ve read of a man taken to heaven by the spirit
     who talked with Adam. Whether this was in the body or out of his body I don’t know, but of such a one I will glory. I have not had that kind of experience yet.

     Andrew, in the future, please be fair on this blog when you post words someone else has said. Please do not cut off the rest of their sentences unless what follows makes no difference in what they said. I think discretion is to be used whenever we do that.
     I do not believe it necessary to always do so.

     For example, I could say, “Yesterday I walked by the car dealership and saw only new cars and a few old trucks for sale.”

     A man might say that I said “Yesterday you walked by a car dealership and saw only new cars” but later on you say that you saw some older vehicles for sale. So I conclude you are not listening to what you say.

251. on 10 Feb 2010 at 7:12 pm251 Ron S.

     Wow! This thread keeps going and going and going!

     Like Sean I’ve been real busy and away from things here, so I’ll have to see if I can catch up with the whole conversation – if that’s possible for me to do.

     I did though want to comment quickly about Sean’s last post (#245). Sean, you and some of the others here may have not read this, but a week or two ago over in the comments for “One God Why does it Matter?”, Andrew admitted that he is a KJV ONLY believer as well as being a Oneness believer (even though he seems to reject that nomenclature). Therefore if he believes that the 1611 KJV is THE perfect, inerrant, version of the Bible, then he’s going to brush the corruption of 1 Tim. 3:16 aside.

     Everyone debating Andrew should keep that in mind. He will use the KJV in all his Scriptural references because he believes it to be absolutely infallible. And there are some places in Scripture where it seems he likes to use this to his Oneness viewpoint’s advantage.

     Now I know this could make this already very long thread even longer by opening up a whole new can of worms, but the better question to ask Andrew would be why does he believe the 1611 KJV is inerrant – in the face of many of the well known textual issues (e.g. 1 John 5:7, Acts 9:6, Acts 12:4).

252. on 10 Feb 2010 at 8:20 pm252 Andrew Patrick

     Dear Ron S,

     I resent the implication that I am unreasonably biased in this regard.

     Therefore if he believes that the 1611 KJV is THE perfect, inerrant, version of the Bible, then he’s going to brush the corruption of 1 Tim. 3:16 aside.

     Aren’t you making an assumption here? Before you’ve heard evidence from both sides, you’ve already demonstrated a prejudice that the majority manuscripts are the ones that are “corrupted.”

     I didn’t reach my current conclusion and beliefs without foundation or testing, and it certainly wasn’t because I was raised that way and just “following the path of least resistance.”

     By the way: I use the 1769 printing of the King James (the normal KJV Bible that everyone has.) I’m not aware of any error within the 1611 printing, and if someone wants to use that, they’re welcome to it, if they can even find one. But I’m really fond of the modern standardized punctuation and spelling of 1769.

     Now I know this could make this already very long thread even longer by opening up a whole new can of worms, but the better question to ask Andrew would be why does he believe the 1611 KJV is inerrant – in the face of many of the well known textual issues (e.g. 1 John 5:7, Acts 9:6, Acts 12:4).

     Wouldn’t it be better to ask me about specific questions that you feel might be relevant, rather than assuming that they are “well known textual issues?”

     What I will ask, if someone wants to take this tack, is that they please make sure they pick important points. I don’t have the energy to exhaustively prove a million things. I have a finite life span.

     What I would also ask is that if someone wants to ask me the sort of general question of “Why do you believe …” that they please be willing to consider what is said, from the angle that it’s presented, with an open mind. At the base of it all, a lot of our belief is from our heart, and it’s not right to ask someone to trust you (and make themselves vulnerable) and then mock them.

     And I’m not saying you’ve done that, just that I’ve seen it done.

     Take care,
     -Andrew

253. on 10 Feb 2010 at 10:08 pm253 Xavier

     Andrew,

     FYI:

     Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:

     Genesis 1:2 should read “And the earth became without form . . . .” The word translated “was” is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

     Genesis 10:9 should read ” . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD.” The word “before” is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

     Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is “scapegoat” which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other’s sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means “one removed or separated.” The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

     Deuteronomy 24:1, “then let him” should be “and he.” As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

     2 Kings 2:23, should be “young men”, not “little children.”

     Isaiah 65:17 should be “I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . .”

     Ezekiel 20:25 should read “Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.” God’s laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God’s laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.

     Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes “evening morning” for “days.” Too bad William Miller didn’t realize this.

     Malachi 4:6 should read ” . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction.” “Curse” doesn’t give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

     Matthew 5:48 should be “Become ye therefore perfect” rather than “be ye therefore perfect.” “Perfect” here means “spiritually mature.” Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

     Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say “there should no flesh be saved alive.”

     Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: “And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood.” The Savior’s death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

     Matthew 28:1, “In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . .” should be translated literally, “Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . .” The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

     Luke 2:14 should say, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God’s good pleasure or choosing.” That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God’s good will in their hearts.

     Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong’s #3404, as “hate”, when it should be rendered “love less by comparison.” We are not to hate our parents and family!

     John 1:31, 33 should say “baptize” or “baptizing IN water” not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

     John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. “By” should be “through”: “For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . .” Moses did not proclaim his law, but God’s Law.

     John 13:2 should be “And during supper” (RSV) rather than “And supper being ended” (KJV).

     Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word “Easter” which should be rendered “Passover.” The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

     1 Corinthians 1:18 should be: “For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God”, rather than “perish” and “are saved.” Likewise, 2 Thessalonians 2:10 should be “are perishing” rather than “perish.”

     1 Corinthians 15:29 should be: “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?”

     2 Corinthians 6:2 should be “a day of salvation”, instead of “the day of salvation.” This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

     1 Timothy 4:8 should say, “For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . .”

     1 Timothy 6:10 should be, “For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . .”

     Hebrews 4:8 should be “Joshua” rather than “Jesus”, although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

     Hebrews 4:9 should read, “There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God.”

     Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation.”

     1 John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.

     Revelation 14:4 should be “a firstfruits”, because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.

     Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence “This is the first resurrection.” in verse five refers back to “they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” in verse four.

     Revelation 20:10, “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.

     Revelation 22:2 should be “health” rather than “healing.”

     http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html

254. on 10 Feb 2010 at 11:15 pm254 Ray

     Esther 1:7
     And they gave them drink in vessels of gold, (the vessels being diverse one from another,) and royal wine in abundance, according to the state of the king.

     You know….sometimes I think of a vessel as being some kind of space ship like on Star Trek..

     Esther 1:8
     And the drinking was according to the law; none did compel: for so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house, that they should do according to every man’s pleasure.

     Never mind about the space ship thing.

     Sometimes I seem to think I’m not of this world when I read the scriptures, but I do need to think soberly.

     You know, those translators sure had a tough job. They had to decide which word to choose for every word or phrase they wanted to translate. I think they did pretty good though. God bless them for what they did for me.

     I suppose we all at times would prefer that they chose another word when we read something. I suppose there may be times when they should have, I don’t know for sure. Sometimes what I prefer isn’t what other would, and what sounds one way to me may sound another way to another. Then again there are times when a word may be misleading to the majority if it is chosen rather than another word. Maybe there are words that have been chosen that are in fact misleading, I don’t know.

     That’s why one of my most often used books is an English dictionary. I like to look at the definitions of words to see the different ways they are used. So often the reason I don’t understand something written is because I was not accustomed to hearing the word used that way.

     It’s like when people say that Jesus is God. I say they can be right in that if they use that in a right way. There is a sense in which Jesus is God, for God is light and so is Jesus. God is love and so is Christ. God is true and so is Jesus.

     Sometimes I think people use that in a way that is wrong, and so I don’t have to drink from that vessel. I can drink from another one.

255. on 10 Feb 2010 at 11:36 pm255 Xavier

     Ray

     It’s like when people say that Jesus is God. I say they can be right in that if they use that in a right way. There is a sense in which Jesus is God, for God is light and so is Jesus. God is love and so is Christ. God is true and so is Jesus.

     Sometimes I think people use that in a way that is wrong, and so I don’t have to drink from that vessel. I can drink from another one.

     Great analogy. Agreed.

256. on 11 Feb 2010 at 1:39 am256 Andrew Patrick

     Dear Xavier,

     Re: SPAM post 253

     Come back when you have a sincere challenge, and something that you’re willing to back, and to stake your reputation on.

     Xavier parroted:

     Hebrews 4:8 should be “Joshua” rather than “Jesus”, although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

     This is an error because … why? This is entirely consistent with the convention of the Authorized Text, plus, it just happens to decode Exodus 23:21 “For my name is in him” for the English reader.

     Why I should be taking you seriously? You’re not sincere, your accusations are baseless, and you’re not prepared to defend any of the points you argue. Please don’t waste my time.

     -Andrew

257. on 11 Feb 2010 at 1:54 am257 Andrew Patrick

     Dear Ray,

     Ray wrote,

     You know, those translators sure had a tough job. They had to decide which word to choose for every word or phrase they wanted to translate. I think they did pretty good though. God bless them for what they did for me.

     Thank you very much for your respectful attitude. In truth, the amount of work and dedication that those teams went through was amazing.

     Ray wrote:

     I suppose we all at times would prefer that they chose another word when we read something. I suppose there may be times when they should have, I don’t know for sure. Sometimes what I prefer isn’t what other would, and what sounds one way to me may sound another way to another.

     Sometimes there are very good reasons why one word was chosen over another, that we may not realize at first. But none of those words were chosen haphazardly, accidentally, or on a whim, and there was a very exacting standard of review within each team, and among the teams.

     Take care,
     -Andrew

258. on 11 Feb 2010 at 7:31 am258 Xavier

     Andrew,

     “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website