951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


Upcoming Debate Zarley vs. Brown

  
Dr. Michael Brown
Kermit Zarley

Next Tuesday, January 12th, from 3-4pm EST, Kermit Zarley (Servetus the Evangelical) will be debating Dr. Michael Brown on the Line of Fire radio show. Dr. Brown is an evangelical author and activist who specializes in discussing Jewish-Christian relations (he grew up Jewish and converted to Christianity). This will be Mr. Zarley’s first official debate (to my knowledge) since the publication of his book The Restitution of Jesus Christ which is available at his website. To listen to the debate live go to The Truth Radio Network website on Tuesday at 3:00 pm and click on the “on air” icon at the top. The show will likely be archived on Dr. Brown’s website: lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org.

***UPDATE*** – It has just been announced that Kermit Zarley will be on the show again tomorrow (1/13/10) if you missed the episode today, be sure to tune in tomorrow (where Dr. Brown said he will take caller’s questions)

35 Responses to “Upcoming Debate Zarley vs. Brown”

  1. on 06 Jan 2010 at 8:34 amJaco

    I can’t wait.

    What will be interesting is to see if Dr. Brown has renounced the true elements of his Jewish (Hebrew) heritage or not. Obviously importing Hellenistic poison along with Scriptural life-giving water is as futile as remaining deceived. I hope agency (shaliach) will be part of Mr Zarley’s exegetical approach in the debate.

    I hope Dr. Brown visits this site afterwards. His arguments will be combed and scrutinised as if it were a high-profile criminal case 🙂

    Thanks, Sean

    Jaco

  2. on 06 Jan 2010 at 10:17 amXavier

    RE: shaliach,

    Just read one of the best essays on the subject by A. E. Harvey, “Christ as Agent”, in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament Studies: Studies in Christology, ed. L. D. Hurst, N. T. Wright (Oxford, 1987).

    For a brief treatment check out the link:

    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=MYs6mslDy0oC&pg=PA126&lpg=PA126&dq=ae+harvey+christ+as+agent&source=bl&ots=3yLQpkuic4&sig=yIbEezgcuz592PtiqMqurXc49og&hl=en&ei=9JlES8TbBIro7AOZhIyWAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ae%20harvey%20christ%20as%20agent&f=false

  3. on 09 Jan 2010 at 12:02 pmBrad

    Agency has its roots in the representative capacity inherent in Sonship. As an attorney and believer in one God, and in His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ, I think the agency argument comes up just shy of the whole truth, unless the conclusion resounds in Sonship. If the conclusion resounds in Christ’s human Sonship, then the whole creation will take notice. Let’s not camp on agency, let’s camp on how literal Sonship comes with a representational capacity akin to contemporary notions of agency, but not synonymous with it. In other words, define and “flesh out” Christ’s Sonship, and darkness will flee away…the elements of nature itself, heaven and earth, all of creation, have been designed to react to Christ’s Sonship. Amen.

  4. on 09 Jan 2010 at 3:48 pmMark C.

    While agency is inherent in sonship, it is not limited to that. The point of bringing up agency is that if angels can be addressed as if they are God Himself, and human representatives of God can be called God (Elohim), how much more would the Son of God be representing God and thus be on occasion called God in this representational sense.

  5. on 09 Jan 2010 at 4:49 pmBrad

    True; and yet, when Jesus himself said “I and the Father are one,” and was accused of blasphemy, his own rationale was that his claim to be “the Son of God” could hardly be called blasphemy if God had called them Elohim in the OT. Thus, even in the context of agency, Christ linked his oneness with the Father precisely to his Sonship. My own sense is that the agency/representative phenomena in the Bible are extremely revelatory, and point us in the right direction, but that they reach their zenith in Christ’s Sonship. That’s not to say agency isn’t everywhere: by his own teaching, Jesus sends us just as the Father sent him. This “sending” is a legal prerequisite for the operation of agency because it means the delegation of authority and granting of representational capacity is valid. Similarly, we come in Jesus’ name just as he came in his Father’s name. Angels are messengers, and are sometimes addressed as God (See Zechariah’s vision). I mean no debate, just see the ramifications of human, literal Sonship as the key idea to explore in the context of Christology, and an understanding of the way agency works and is manifest in the Bible is certainly helpful.

  6. on 09 Jan 2010 at 8:00 pmXavier

    Brad,

    I agree with you regarding defining the Hebraic Shaliach principle with that of sonship, especially in the context of 1st century-2nd Temple period. A.E. Harvey looks into this exact same thing in “Jesus and the constraints of history: Ch. 7, Son of God: The Constraint of Monotheism” (1982).

    It is therefore no cause for surprise that the New Testament writers appear to have submitted to this constraint, and to have avoided using the word ‘god’ or `divine’ of Jesus. Jesus himself is recorded as having endorsed the standard Jewish confession of monotheism (Mark 12.29) and accepted the prohibition which this implied of any moral comparison between himself and God (Mark 10.18); moreover in the Fourth Gospel he is made to deny vigorously the accusation that lie set himself up as a being equal to and independent of God. The New Testament writers similarly are insistent about the absolute oneness of God and show no tendency to describe Jesus in terms of divinity: the few apparent exceptions are either grammatically or textually uncertain or have an explanation which, as we shall see, brings them within the constraint of Jewish monotheism. It was not until the new religion had spread well beyond the confines of its parent Judaism that it became possible to break the constraint and describe Jesus as divine; and it is significant that Jewish Christian churches continued to exist for at least a century which refused to take this step. But given that this option was closed, only one alternative remained. If no divine attributes were possible, only human categories could be used. Jesus’ unique authority must somehow be expressed by a model or paradigm drawn from human experience and human relationships. We have seen already that one designation that was chosen (and was apparently inspired by the character of Jesus’ activity) was that of the person anointed to proclaim good news to the poor and bring sight to the blind: the Christ. Another, which has become of critical importance in subsequent Christian doctrine, was Son of God.

    That this was felt to be a highly significant title is shown by the remarkable fact that in all four gospels it is given to Jesus only by supernatural beings or voices or by men speaking on supernatural authority. The only exception (apart from one instance in Matthew’s gospel to which we must return later) is the significant one of the cry of recognition by the centurion at the cross. We shall suggest in a moment the reason for this restraint in the use of the title; for the present it is enough It note that it was evidently not felt to be a description which could he used indifferently alongside others, but that it had a particular connotation such that it could be applied to Jesus only on the highest authority. Precisely what this connotation was is a question on which a certain amount of light is thrown by the observation that the title is known to have been applied by Jesus’ contemporaries to angels, to the Jewish race as a whole, and (a recent development) to men of particular piety and innocence. But to gain more precision in the matter, it is necessary to ask how the relationship between the son and his father was normally understood, and what kind of relationship with God would therefore have been implied by the title. To do this, we have first to rid our minds of that somewhat sentimental ideal of ideals of intimacy and partnership between father and son for which there is no evidence before the Enlightenment and which became widely accepted only under the influence of the Romantic Movement. We must set on one side also that interest in the physical and metaphysical implications of the relationship which lay at the heart of the christological debates of the early patristic period and which owed more to Greek philosophical speculation than to the social mores of the Jews. I suggest that there were in fact three aspects in particular which seemed important, if not defining, characteristics of the relationship of a son to his father.

    I’m in the process of uploading the article, check it out here:

    http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/2010/01/jesus-and-constraints-of-history.html

  7. on 10 Jan 2010 at 1:42 amBrad

    That is very interesting. I’d like to add that Jesus and his Father have a relationship that MUST be explored further, without necessarily limiting it to a historical or cultural context. There is indeed an intimate relationship between the Father (God) and the Son (man), a relationship that, when explored, reveals the truth regarding each person in contrast with the other. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, etc. (Matthew 11:27). Who better to define the Father than the Son, who better to explain Him, reveal Him, etc. Who had or has a better prayer life or communication with God than Jesus? Jesus always pleased God, and the Father loves the Son. What God did not show Moses (His Face), He certainly did show His Son. Therefore, we go to Jesus to get our revelation of the Father, simply because Jesus knows Him best.

    Similalry, it is the Father’s view of the Son that we should seek, not necessarily our own. Looking at the Son through the eyes of God the Father, we must take an eternal perspective, since God is eternal. The Logos makes more since this way, as do Christ’s own statements regarding his origin and identity (to the extent that he ties himself to the Logos). God sees the end from the beginning, and because Christ obtained his self-image from his Father, Jesus is going to describe himself eternally. He always saw himself through his Father’s eyes, and that vision was profound and often difficult for others to comprehend. Jesus let his Father define him, because he knew that only the Father was in a position to know him accurately and define him truthfully. This led to statements that have been misinterpreted, but they were and are all true from God’s eternal perspective.

    The point is, exploring and expounding upon the relationship between the Father and the Son, their love for one another, knowledge of one another, perspective of one another, etc., is naturally destructive of false doctrine regarding the “Godhead.” The born again spirit will “relate” to a conversation about how Jesus, as a man, loves his Father, and how the Father, as the one God, loves, appreciates, and honors His human Son Jesus. Exploring the relationship between the Father and Son, from the perspective of each, brings a depth to Christology that the trinitarian model cannot match, because the trinitarian model is merely two dimensional. I have found that the more I speak of the Father-Son relationship, the more likely I am to see the veil lift from the eyes of a trinitarian, because they never think in relationship terms, they just think in definitional, doctrinal terms – who he is to us, not who they are to one another.

    It seems to me that agency, by itself, has similar limitations. It describes our perception, our point of view, which is fine as far as it goes, but to truly exploit the weaknesses in the trinitarian model, one must go further and bring Christ and his Father to life as persons in each other’s eyes. When God looks into the heart of His Son, what does He see? When Jesus lifts up his voice to the Father in worship, what does he feel in his heart? These questions, it seems to me, are pointed directly at the Achilles heel of our adversary.

    Please don’t get me wrong; the fact that agency is being debated and brought to the forefont is wonderful, and necessary, and I am glad this debate is taking place.

  8. on 10 Jan 2010 at 7:21 amXavier

    Brad,

    Early on in my Christian life I was baffled by the Catholic creeds and the rampant confusion regarding who God and Jesus are. Since God has given humankind the simplest and truest way to understand them by the Apostolic staments of: “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” [2Cor 1.3; Eph 1.3, 17; Rom 15.6; 1Pe 1.3].

    When God looks into the heart of His Son, what does He see? When Jesus lifts up his voice to the Father in worship, what does he feel in his heart?

    Great questions by the way, would love to see you develop them more.

  9. on 12 Jan 2010 at 3:30 pmVictor

    Hey everyone, just wanted to remind you this debate is going on TODAY in 30mins! Enjoy.

  10. on 12 Jan 2010 at 3:35 pmBrad

    “That all should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honors not the Son, honors not the Father who has sent him.” (John 5:23).

    The honor that is due God the Father is infinite; it is unspeakable, holy, and untouchable. We could be on our faces for millennia and still not scratch the surface of the honor that is due the Holy One. There is no theology or explanation or rationale or doctrine that supports the notion that Jesus of Nazareth is due this honor. John 5:23 is blasphemy, except for the fact that Jesus is LITERALLY the Only Begotten Son of God Almighty. If you don’t understand this, you better make him into a second person of a tri-une God, because otherwise you may as well cut John 5:23 from the Holy Text. It is either one or the other, and it should be frightening. Christ’s Sonship is an infinite cosmic disturbance that should rock us to the core and put us on our faces in tribute. IT IS UNSPEAKABLE!! He is the Son of God!!!!! His nobility, his innate nobility as a man, traces to the Holy One of Israel!!!!

    When he comes, his majesty and glory and honor will be revealed, and will shine as the Sun in heaven for eternity. Kiss the Son. God has blessed him forever!!!!!!!!!

  11. on 12 Jan 2010 at 4:20 pmSean

    the debate is live right now!

  12. on 12 Jan 2010 at 4:48 pmVictor

    ***UPDATE*** – It has just been announced that Kermit Zarley will be on the show again tomorrow (1/13/10) if you missed the episode today, be sure to tune in tomorrow (where Dr. Brown said he will take caller’s questions)

  13. on 12 Jan 2010 at 4:57 pmBrad

    The Logos was made flesh/human, and dwelt among us. In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. This whole issue of the man Christ’s “pre-existence” need not be such a stumbling stone. In John’s writings, he gravitates to the position that Jesus and the Logos are an identity. His name is the Word of God, etc. The mere existence of John 1:1-14 gives us a theology for Jesus being both God and pre-existent — as the LOGOS. We just have to define his Deity and his pre-existence in different terms. God is merely giving us an eternal view of his human Son in John 1:1. This would avoid all these needless accusations of heresy, etc. Jesus said “be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves.” John 1:1 gives the humanity of Christ camp a rationale for teaching about the true way in which Christ can be identified as Deity, and we should use it.

    God will not share his glory…this is a typical argument that is overcome with a revelation of the magnitude and nobility of Christ’s human Sonship. If God is his Father as a man, the whole idea is that such a being would be due the same honor! When God said he would not give his glory to another, Jesus is not “another” in God’s eyes. Woe unto anyone who fails to understand that God has a human Son, and the creation has to deal with the reality and legality of that situation. The cattle on a thousand hills, all power in heaven and earth, the NAME — it all belongs to Christ by inheritance, which underscores the honor due him as Son. The revelation of the nobility of Sonship, the infinite nobility of Christ’s human Sonship, is the key.

    Absolutely, worship Jesus — he is God’s literal offspring and heir! We’d better worship him! Listen, if Jesus is God’s Son, and if we give Sonship the nobility that it would logically deserve, then the gap is bridged — end of issue. We must not simply stumble at the same issue that troubled the Jews — the same rationale is troubling Dr. Brown. A deep revelation of Sonship resolves all of these arguments. Sonship is the stone of stumbling. It was blasphemy, so they crucified him!!! The Son at the right hand!!!

    Jesus is the Mighty God, He is the Father, He is God — in the same way that he expressed to Phillip. As the Son, the human Son, he is the Arm of the LORD, and of course the Arm of the LORD IS the LORD. We need a revelation of the ramification of the human lineage of Jesus of Nazareth and what it REALLY means that God Fathered him.

  14. on 12 Jan 2010 at 5:27 pmBrad

    In 1983, I was a janitor in a big city skyscraper, working the late shift, putting my way through Bible college. I was 23. I took a break and sat down on the carpet near the elevator, and opened my Bible. I began to read and pray. After about a half-hour, I had a vision of sorts, something profound. I saw the second coming of Christ in a majesty and glory that made me weep, sob actually. But the thing that changed my life was that all the majesty and glory was pinned to his him as a man, as the literal Son of God — a human being was the SON OF GOD — heir of the universe!! I was later put out of my church for preaching this, talking about it, and refusing to give it up. I have studied the Son of God revelations ever since. I went on to get a degree in history, then a degree in law. I practice law today in that same city.

    the thing is, God the Father is not stumbled by the glory and majesty and equality of His Son; He is not stumbled by the title of God attributed to him, nor is he stumbled by the notion that as the LOGOS the human being Jesus was with Him from the beginning. God is an eternal Spirit, sees the end from the beginning, and calls things that are not as though they were…even His human Son. I worship the lamb, I worship the only begotten Son, his nature as a man is not relevant if God is his Father; what is relevant is one issue: who is his Father? If the anser if YHWH, then all bets are off and he’ll get my adoration, praise, worship, and devotion.

    If I get to speak with a Jewish convert to Christ. I ask him — what are the ramifications of YHWH having a human child? Any honor there all by itself? If so, tell me, how much? Seriously, He makes a virgin woman pregnant, and says that is My Son — what are the ramifications of that? There is only one honest answer if we accept the premise — infinite glory, infinite honor. God has an heir!!!! Not just a second Adam, but the sole heir of YHWH. We inherit through him; we are adopted. Jesus is SON OF GOD AS MAN — it speaks for itself and angels are well aware.

    Sorry…

  15. on 12 Jan 2010 at 8:45 pmXavier

    Missed the live show down under how was it? Available anywhere atm?

  16. on 12 Jan 2010 at 10:58 pmRay

    Brad, there’s so much we need to hear in what you say. I’ve only been reading your last two posts, but I do believe what you saw
    was revealed to you by God. Never forget your vision. I believe God gave it to you to share.

    In heaven all are of one. Everything is connected. Everything is of one for God is one. Jesus is as God is. There are no differences between them, though we see a distinction in the scriptures.

    Even as God is his father, there is a sense in which Jesus is God’s father because Jesus is the one who begat us to God through his word and work. Everything we see in Jesus is a reflection of the Father. Jesus is the father of our faith that God gave to us, being the apostle and high priest of God to us.

    Everything good in the Bible is what God is, and the same goes for Jesus. He is his image, so when we look at Jesus, we can see God, just as at times we can see Christ in one another.

    It’s OK to worship Jesus as God as long as we are not a stumbling block to our brothers. It’s important that we are not a stumbling block to anyone, for whatever we have done to the least of one of God’s we have done to him, and to Christ.

    Everyone is of one in heaven. Jesus is the only one who can get us into heaven. God gets us there but only through Jesus.

    It’s not robbery if Jesus say that he is God, for in every way he really is.

  17. on 13 Jan 2010 at 12:43 amRay

    When man turned away from God, he sent them a man that was like himself to be as a father to them, in order that he might bring them back to himself. This of course was Jesus who like a good father
    loved to the end, for Jesus is love.

    I read once in a book by a man I had considered to be a Trinitarian,
    that “Jesus is not a man.”

    I thought that to have been odd. I wondered why he would say that. We know him not according to the flesh anymore, but I had never read of or heard anyone say that Jesus is not a man, not that I can recall anyway.

    So I turned to a dictionary to see how the word “man” is used.

    Is Jesus human?

    He was human. Now he is new in a way that he wasn’t before.
    His character is the same, but after his resurrection, isn’t he more
    than just human? He changed. He was raised in glory… Super human?

    Here’s another way “man” is used:

    Do you consider this man to be a man? (a person with qualities conventionally regarded as manly, such as strength, courage, etc.)

    So if we say Jesus is not a man, we might offend somebody and rightfully so, if we say it in a certain way. It might be OK to say that he is not a man in the certain context even though he is very much a man.

    I still wonder why the man wrote it. He could have said something very similar, even the same thing, another way. Maybe it was for a purpose.

    There’s different ways to say that Jesus is God isn’t there?

  18. on 13 Jan 2010 at 7:51 amJaco

    Brad,

    Thank you for your thoughts. I do think that you take them a little too far. Jesus is God as His representative, and not in his person. Jesus is our Eternal Father with respect to our being born again through his saving work (Eph. 1:19-23, 2:10, 4:24). That makes us heirs as well (Gal. 4:6, 7). Being an heir of God does not make me God. Unless you want to go the Evangelical/New Age route. I do inherit glory. I do inherit honor. All virtues only God can provide. But in the end I’m just a means to a greater purpose, and that is the glorification and ultimate honor of God, Yahweh (1 Cor 15:27, 28, Phil. 2:11).

    A controversy, a heresy did arise. It is the Christian’s duty to correct those who contradict. Trying to resolve this through present Greco-Roman philosophy will not achieve anything, since the very terms have semantic meanings different from the Jewish world-view. By sticking to Scripture, we see Jesus, to whom holy spirit was provided beyond measure (Joh. 3:34), who lived a sinless life, died, resurrected and was glorified (Col. 1:13-20). Now all fulness of what pertains to God dwells in him (Col 2:9). But still to the honor and glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:11). So, yes, he should be worshipped as Ruler or God of the New Creation, but ultimately to the glory of the Only True Almighty God, Yahweh.

    I see no need in smudging the boundaries into fuzzy and vague uncertainties.

    Regards,

    Jaco

  19. on 13 Jan 2010 at 8:04 amDoubting Thomas

    Brad
    Welcome. Your story about your revelation that Jesus is human is terrific. God does reveal things to us through many different ways. I would however disagree with you about it being alright to worship Jesus. The second commandment is very clear about not creating idols and worshiping them.

    Jesus himself always humbled himself in relation to God. In the story of the rich man Jesus says, “Why do you call me good? There is only one who is good and that is God.” If he always humbled himself in relationship to his father in heaven, Who are we to do different? Raising Jesus up to become an idol for us to worship would be wrong.

    I also disagree with your statement that because Jesus is the right hand of God than that makes him equal to God or the same as God (therefore deserving our worship). That would be like arguing that the right hand man of President Obama is equal to or the same as the President.

    I believe the proper term for Jesus is King of Kings. Jesus is our King. It would be wrong for us to worship our King. Like the second commandment says only God deserves worship.

  20. on 13 Jan 2010 at 4:04 pmBrad

    It is amazing to me that the scriptures can be so clear, and yet well-meaning people feel compelled to bend over backwards to render them ineffective. Thus, I could quote “I and the Father are one,” and a well-meaning person would say that is not what it means. I could point to “My Lord and my God,” and a well-meaning person will say that’s not what it means. I could quote John 5:23, and insist that the Words of Jesus himself be acknowledged, and the magic wand of this or that will be used to render its meaning something else. I could refer to Christ’s statement to Phillip “have you not known me Phillip, he that has seen me has seen the Father,” and the import and wonder of this teaching would be whisked away by some covenient sectarian dogma. New Testament Christians telling another Christian that it is improper to worship Jesus Christ! When he calmed the storm, they worshipped him. But you see, it doesn’t matter how many scriptures I quote, or how vivid a picture I paint with the words of our Lord, because in your tool kit you already have what you need to obscure, misdirect, or water down. I know the game, I am an attorney. I see this all the time and know there is nothing that can be said, no scripture clear enough to escape your doctrinal sleight of hand.

    Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. He is the Arm of the LORD. He is the image of the invisible God. He is the express image of YHWH’s person. All the fulness of the God-essence dwells in him bodily. He is the Temple of God. If we’ve seen him and known him we’ve seen and known the Father. He has been given all power in heaven and earth. He is the brightness of God’s glory. All things have been put under his feet. His feet are God’s feet. His hands are God’s hands. When he judges the world, it will be His Father that is judging the world though him.

    And yet, I am quite certain you have an answer for each statement; a resort to the nuances of the original language, or some absolute rule that in your own mind must be adhered to above all else. You are the masters of this, but do not be so proud of this ability, it is not admirable.

    You would call a brother an idol worshipper because he bows his knee to our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. You stumble at the same stumbling stone that the Jews of old did when they heard Christ claim a oneness with his Father. Idolatry? Crucify him! The power of that accusation, the connotations of it, the sting it carries, is beneath you, and yet it springs from your lips so naturally. Worthy is the lamb! God is the one who has put all things under his Son’s feet until the kingdom is delivered up to him. In the mean time, I will obey the scriptures and kiss the Son.

    When Jesus questioned the idea of whether it was appropriate to call him “good,” he said there was “one” who was good, and that was God. But brother, know ye not that Jesus and the Father are one? You are trapped by your own choice of when and how you apply the word “one” to Jesus when it comes to his relationship with his Father. You will not allow Jesus to tell you the truth, that he is one with YHWH. And am I an idol worshipper because I adhere to Christ’s teaching that he and his Father are one? Had the person said: “I call you good master because your Father alone is good, and yet I believe that you and your Father are one my Lord,” Jesus would have responded “thou hast well said.”

    I will see you brothers in glory, and we can speak more of this when we sit down together in his kingdom. God be with you! Philadelphia!!!

  21. on 13 Jan 2010 at 4:44 pmDaniel

    Hebrews 1:6 (New American Standard Bible)

    6And when He again (A)brings the firstborn into (B)the world, He says,
    “(C)AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.”

    God does not think this is idol worship, neither should we.

  22. on 13 Jan 2010 at 8:24 pmDoubting Thomas

    Brad
    I did not accuse you of being an idol worshiper. I said we shouldn’t raise Jesus up like an idol and worship him the same as we worship his father (completely different from what you accuse me of). The second commandment is quite clear on this. Like I said Jesus himself always humbled himself to his father as and example of how we should behave. Who are we to say that Jesus was wrong in humbling himself when comparing himself to his father. I myself would not dare to say this. Jesus is the Christ the teacher. Saying he was like his father and saying that seeing him was like seeing the father does not mean he was saying he was exactly the same as his father or equal to his father. You are the one saying that….

  23. on 13 Jan 2010 at 8:26 pmRay

    Well said Daniel. Let’s not put anything in front of anyone that would come to the Lord in worship.

    Worship is the universal language for the Christian. It also is a means to enter into understanding as long as we depart from any evil. Worship brings people together. God inherits the praises of his people. When God says “Worship Jesus”, we may worship Jesus.

    How often have we seen a line of worship and someone wants to interpret what has been written their own way and by such means
    think they are to “correct” someone? (darkening by words without the knowledge of God)

    It happens too often. It will not happen in heaven.

    It’s good to discuss things if our talk is managed well. Iron is good to sharpen iron, but iron can also dull iron. Iron can ruin iron.

    When we confessed Jesus as Lord, we worshipped him. If the whole world began to worhip him, wouldn’t the whole world be on their way to salvation?

    We have a lot of freedom in worship. God seeks us to worship him in spirit and truth and has given us both the truth and his spirit in order to do that. God knows what he’s all about and gave us of his spirit in order to do what he wants us to do for our salvation and his glory. From my position, his glory should come first. After I give him glory, he works on my salvation.

    I wonder what a blog would look like if every line on it was worship.
    If we see something in error, or could be something that could lead a person to err, what if we sought to correct the problem with lines of worship?

    There’s so many ways to worship God and no two people do it the same.

    Jesus is not an idol. He’s not the work of man’s hands. He’s the potter and we are the clay. His hands are upon those who come to God by him. His power is over the clay.

    I thought about this… How do we see God speak of Jesus in the gospels? When God spoke from heaven what did he say about Jesus? Did he go on and on in line after line of worship? NO. He said, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” and in another place he said, “Hear ye him.”

    Yet in God’s word we see Jesus often worshipped, and these words of God came through men. This is a wonderful mystery, this life in Jesus.

  24. on 13 Jan 2010 at 9:28 pmDoubting Thomas

    Daniel (msg. 21)
    You quote Paul in the letter of Hebrews. I do not study Paul’s writings and I don’t believe he was an Apostle. Other than Paul’s claims that he was an Apostle there is no evidence to support this. At the beginning of Galations Paul in his own words says I was not appointed an Apostle by mere men but by God himself.

    In other words he is saying that Peter and the Apostles and other church leaders like Jesus’ brother James and the other elders like Barnabus didn’t appoint him or recognize him as an Apostle. In the book of Acts Peter makes it quite clear what the minimum requirements are to be an Apostle (must have known Jesus for entire 3 year ministry etc..). It is clear Paul doesn’t meet even one of these requirements as laid out by Peter to be an Apostle.

    The bible clearly states that there were 12 Apostles and that the last one that was appointed was Mathius who replaced Judas. No one in the bible refers to Paul as an Apostle except Paul and his followers. Who gave Paul the right to appoint himself as an Apostle? Why would God start appointing Apostles beyond the original 12 Apostles? None of Paul’s claims makes any sense to me.

  25. on 13 Jan 2010 at 11:10 pmRay

    Paul was chosen of God and recognized by the Lord Jesus, calling
    him Saul and saying “Why persecutest me?” (Acts 9) This calling of
    God and Christ we can read about in the book written by another
    apostle. We also read about Ananias who was instructed of the Lord Jesus to minister to him.

    Though no man appointed him as an apostle, they did accept him as one. He openly rebuked Peter, something we can read about in Galatians. He was known by the other apostles. Peter’s letters to the Church recognize Paul and speak well of him.

    In chapter two of II Peter, the apostle warns the Church of false prophets, teachers, and heresies, and then in chapter three he recognizes Paul, the wisdom God gave him, and his epistles.

    Clearly, the elders, apostles, and disciples knew of Paul, and his epistles to the Church. I’ve found no reason to doubt his apostolic
    calling and election of God and Christ, nor his acceptance of who he is by the eldership. In his letters he shows the importance of building up some of the saints in knowing who he was, how he lived, and his calling of God, as some of them were quite carnal and highminded concerning themselves, something he often warned them of.

    The apostle Peter recognized the scripture that was written concerning Judas who fell and the need to appoint another to take his place. (Acts 1) Peter’s asking the men and brethren which of those men who companied with them from the beginning (the baptism of John) until the day of the ascension of the Lord, shows
    prudence, but does not establish any doctrine as if such actions are a standard to be strictly adhered to for all the future of the callings of God in the Church.

    True, the apostle Paul would not have met those requirements.
    During those days, he was very much against the Church, it seems to me. But God chose to make Saul an example of his grace and his power through Jesus Christ to us.

  26. on 14 Jan 2010 at 12:21 amRay

    correction, One of Peter’s two letters mention Paul, speaking well of him. There is no mention of Paul in his other letter to the Church.

    So what was it Jesus was telling us by his calling Saul to be one of his apostles? There’s a lot of things we can learn by this, one of which seems to be that more than the twelve can be called to be apostles by him.

    No man call call himself to be an apostle of Jesus Christ. He might claim to be one when he isn’t, or he may put the title of apostle in front of his name to seek to further his ministry by ungodly means, but he can not issue the call to be an apostle by his own means.
    Any callings which are of ourselves, or of others if not of God or of
    Jesus, will not avail for God. Only his call can avail for his purposes.
    Any call of one’s self and not of God is not a true calling.

    Paul taked about having the signs of an apostle. Signs tell us of the recognition of God and give direction. Signs verify God and the work he is doing.

    Road signs may direct a man to let him know he is on the right road, but just because he has seen sign after sign doesn’t mean he is on the right road if he has taken a sudden turn. It could be a turn for the worse, one he isn’t willing to acknowledge. He might fool himself and even others thinking he is still on the right road he was on before.

    A true word may be a true sign. God may give a man words that are signs to him through people that don’t even know him. These things might be seen repeatedly and be true signs for the man.
    Signs can come in other ways also. God can speak through his creation and they don’t have to be people.

    A false word, one made up by a man which might try to seem right
    can be a lying sign. Also see Deut 13 about lying signs and wonders.

    May we all learn to speak and do, so as to never turn another away from God, or the right way.

  27. on 14 Jan 2010 at 3:27 amJaco

    Attorney Brad,

    I would hope you don’t use these hit-and-run tactics in your practise…

    It is amazing to me that the scriptures can be so clear, and yet well-meaning people feel compelled to bend over backwards to render them ineffective…Over 20 000 pronouns render God singular, all verb forms in Hebrew and Greek associated with Yahweh are in the singular, yet the the pseudo-polytheist (trinitarian) insists on plurality. To trinitarians, “one” means any number. Trinitarians picked the number three. The one YHWH promised to send, separate and inferior to him, is said to be his son and Messiah (Deut 18:15, 18, Ps. 2, Isa 11, 52:13-53:12). Dissatisfied with divine revelation, trinitarians strain and squeeze sacred text mercilessly to make this son and Messiah YHWH himself. Cherry picking is the classical fallacious trinitarian exercise. No clearer anthropomorphism exists where the superior Originator provides His inferior agent, than in the relationship of a father to a son (John 17:3, Heb. 1:1-3). Trinitarianism disrupts and sabotages all these irrefutable, yet valuable Hebraic truths. Heresy is presented as orthodoxy. As if Yahweh’s words are not good enough for trinitarians, Yahweh’s prophet like Moses’ words are also disregarded. Jesus’ words and actions identifying him as Mediator, Agent and Representative are ignored, even despised as heresy (John 5). The trinitarians’ God can die. He has to rest and sleep sometimes. Not the God of the Bible (Hab. 1:12). Jesus denies absolute goodness and ascribes it to God. That makes him different and inferior. Being one with the Father doesn’t make him identical to the Father. The Father is indeed greater than Jesus is, according to Jesus’ own testimony (John 14:28, I Cor. 11:3, 15:27, 28).

    How presumptuous to ignore and trash all these sacred Hebrew bedrock concepts and arrogate to oneself the position to superimpose pagan, God-dishonoring concepts and dogma onto sacred truths. How brave does one have to be to present as truth a Gospel never taught! (Gal. 1:8, 9)

    But you see, it doesn’t matter how many scriptures [we] quote, or how vivid a picture [we] paint with the words of our Lord, because in your tool kit you already have what you need to obscure, misdirect, or water down. I know the game, I am a [Logician]. I see this all the time and know there is nothing that can be said, no scripture clear enough to escape your doctrinal sleight of hand. (I couldn’t have said it any better).

    Brad, your dogma and your arguments make me God! That’s how blasphemous they are! If Jesus is God because he and his Father are one, I’m also God, because I’m as one with them as they are among themselves! (Joh. 17:21)

    Yes, you are quite right, we do have an answer for every statement. The difference is, ours is the Biblical answer. If the Bible says Jesus is the Son of God, separate from Yahweh (Joh. 8:54, Ac. 3:13), the image of God (Heb. 1:3) we accept it as such. We do not take the fallacious leap by identifying or equating these two entities. To us, Scripture is good enough. We don’t need extra-biblical councils chaired by sun-worshippers to teach us about God and Christ. To us Scripture is enough (2 Tim 3:16, 17). For God’s sake, stop twisting what is sacred to sanctify what is corrupt!

    Jaco

  28. on 14 Jan 2010 at 9:27 amFrank D

    Was the debate between Zarley and Brown this lively?

    Any audio?

    Brad, Did Jesus have a God?

  29. on 14 Jan 2010 at 10:29 amrobert

    Hebrews 10
    12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

    what is meant by man in this verse, wouldnt he have returned to God status.

    13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool

    Psalm 110:1

    The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

    Matthew 22:44

    The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

    Mark 12:36
    For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

    Luke 20:43

    Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

    Acts 2:35

    Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
    Hebrews 1:13

    But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

    Why is God doing this on His own
    Shouldnt this read WE.
    Have we exalted Jesus ourself.
    Yes there is a time when everyone will worship Jesus, But it hasnt occured yet.
    If Jesus was a god he could make his enemies his footstool on his own.
    Jesus will received all power when God rest during Kingdom of God

  30. on 14 Jan 2010 at 11:31 amTim

    The debate (day 1) is available as a podcast download from Dr. Brown’s website (or iTunes). I could not figure out a way to get it directly, though I did not look real hard.

    Zarley sounds like a very gracious man who is not familiar with the rules of the game for “gotcha” radio debates of the format that Brown does. So, he respectfully answered Brown’s questions and did not challenge any of Brown’s ridiculous assertions, such as the time that Brown accused Zarley of idolatry, or Brown’s use of the phrase “complex unity” (unity seems to me to be the opposite of “complex”).

    I don’t often get aggravated about these kinds of debates, but this was difficult for me to take. Zarley’s book is very impressive and he was not able to reflect his knowledge in the ten second soundbite format of this type of debate.

  31. on 14 Jan 2010 at 12:57 pmDoubting Thomas

    Ray (msg. 25)
    You talk about Ananius in Galations and how he openly rebuked Peter. Paul’s writings also talk about how others stopped following Paul and were now following Peter. There is also all kinds of historical evidence outside of the bible that the followers of Paul referred to the other Christians as heretics and the other Christians in return referred to the followers of Paul as heretics.

    At the end of the first century there were about a dozen collections of books (or bibles as they were called) almost all these collections had at least two of the three synoptics in them showing that the synoptics were widely accepted as the core writings of the early Christians and not one of these collections had the writings of Paul in the same collection (or bible) as the synoptics.

    The followers of Paul rejected the synoptics as gospels because they had their own gospel. The gospel of John. Like I have repeatedly pointed out nothing in John matches or supports the synoptics and if you take the time to look in your concordance every time John talks about the same subject as the synoptics John says something completely different often the exact opposite of what the synoptics are saying.

    All the religious experts know that in Religion 101 they are taught that Paul’s teachings and the teachings of Peter and the Apostles were basically the same and that everyone recognized these mystic revelations that Paul was receiving from Jesus (or God) as being authentic and that everyone read and accepted the letters of Paul.

    They completely ignore the fact that Peter and the Apostles continued to go peacefully into the temple every Sabbath and debate the other Jewish sects about whether Jesus was the Messiah or not and that The Way (as the early Christians were called) were widely accepted as a Jewish sect for nearly 70 years after Pentecost but that the arrival of Paul in the holy city of Jeruselam caused such an uproar among the Jews that were zealous for the law that huge riots broke out and that 40 men swore an oath of death not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul.

    Why would the Jews who were zealous for the law have treated Paul so much differently than they treated Peter and the Apostles if their teachings were basically the same?

    This idea that Paul’s teachings were basically the same as Peter and the Apostles and that everyone accepted Paul’s claims to having these mystical revelations and therefore accepted and followed Paul’s writings as revelations from God (or Jesus) is nothing but a human tradition passed down from the 4th. century and has no basis in the facts presented in either the bible or in the historical facts that we have available to us today.

  32. on 14 Jan 2010 at 1:03 pmRon S.

    Good observations Tim!

    Zarley does seem very polite and may very well not be use to that type of radio format where you’ve got to get your points in quick & fast – especially when you’re at the mercy of the other party who controls everything about the interview (time, format, commercial breaks, etc.). In that setting, it is all too easy to be made to appear you are not well spoken or that you can not refute the points made by the host.

    I think you almost have to be ready with your own “hot points” and go on the offensive with them. Instead of waiting to refute their points – and then not being given proper time to counter them, you need to come out swinging with points that the other side will have trouble answering. That way the listener at least is left to chew on your point(s) instead of theirs with you getting short-changed on being able to properly answer.

  33. on 14 Jan 2010 at 1:19 pmRon S.

    BTW, everyone, I think we may need to have Brad clarify his position.

    It seems from his posts that he might NOT be a classical Trinitarian.

    Unless I’m missunderstanding what I read of his first posts, Brad seems to be saying that Jesus is human and did not come into literal existence until his conception in Mary by God. But that Jesus is equal to God because he is a LITERAL OFFSPRING of God. That as the literal SON of God, he is equal to God because of his birth right/family name. Brad seems to say that he’s not just the 2nd Adam, but that he is God’s first & only direct descendant.

    Brad, can you clarify if I’m off-base or on the right track here.

  34. on 14 Jan 2010 at 2:40 pmMichael

    Brad writes…literal Sonship as {is} the key idea to explore in the context of Christology,

    Response- All denominations believe that Jesus as the Son of God must be defined as anything but his being the literal or ontological Son of God rendering Jesus as the Son and God as the Father mere titles.

    Brad writes…But you see, it doesn’t matter how many scriptures I quote, or how vivid a picture I paint with the words of our Lord, because in your tool kit you already have what you need to obscure, misdirect, or water down. I know the game, I am an attorney. I see this all the time and know there is nothing that can be said, no scripture clear enough to escape your doctrinal sleight of hand.

    Response- The driving force of what Unitarians believe is their expertise on what Trinitarians believe and this is where the confidence in their own doctrine emanates from. Since they are less assured in their own doctrine gamesmanship becomes a substitute for solid reasoning.

    Brad writes…We need a revelation of the ramification of the human lineage of Jesus of Nazareth and what it REALLY means that God Fathered him.

    Response- When every denomination starts with the belief that God is not the literal Father of Jesus, that the Creator cannot procreate they immediately and completely separate themselves from the truth if God is in fact the ontological Father of His Son Jesus.

    Brad writes…And yet, I am quite certain you have an answer for each statement; a resort to the nuances of the original language, or some absolute rule that in your own mind must be adhered to above all else. You are the masters of this, but do not be so proud of this ability, it is not admirable.

    Response- Agreed.

  35. on 14 Jan 2010 at 9:06 pmRay

    Deut 32:28-43
    For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them.
    O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end!
    How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?
    For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themeselves being judges.
    For their vine is of the vie of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter:
    Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.
    Is not this laid up in store with me, and sealed up among my treasures?
    To me belongeth vengeance, and recompense; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.
    For the Lord shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left.
    And he shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted,
    Which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink offerings? let them rise up and help you, and be your protection.
    See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
    For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.
    If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me.
    I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the begining of revenges upon the enemy.
    Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will agenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengence to this adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

    Seeing that these things are so with God, what manner of people ought we to be? Do we not consider that how we have been to God is how he will be to us in a time of judgment? And who can stand before him and answer contrary to him?

    Treasure is being stored up for the last time. What a man soweth he shall also reap. What man knows the prayers of the saints that have suffered for his name’s sake and righteousness, which have entered into his storehouse? There they are kept in store till the day when his vengence will be released.

  

Leave a Reply