2nd Trinitarian Constructive (4a)
September 7th, 2010 by Marc Taylor
This is the seventh post in a moderated debate between Biblical Unitarian Danny Dixon and Trinitarian Marc Taylor. A complete list of posts can be accessed here.
1. The title “First and Last” is of course not simply “one theological statement with one theological truth”. Besides denoting that Christ is Eternal it also refers to His power and majesty.
a. Mounce: The word appears in Revelation in the phrase “beginning and end.” This theologically rich phrase articulates the power of God (Rev. 21:6) and Christ (22:13), denoting both extremes of beginning and end along with everything temporally and spatially in between (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, End, page 212).
b. TDNT: The self-designation of God in Rev. 21:6 (cf. 1:8) or Christ in Rev. 22:13 primarily denotes His eternity but then His absolute majesty (8:55, telos – Gerhard Delling).
c. Christ did not die spiritually only physically so His physical death in no way impugns on the fact that He is eternal. Indeed, since He is referred to as the “First and the Last” (Eternal) in the very same place it talks about His death (Revelation 1:17; cf. 2:8) it even more strongly reaffirms this truth.
– Citing Luke 23:46 the NIDNTT reads, “At death man ceases to exist both in the realm of the physical and in the realm of the spiritual, and continues existing only in the spiritual; and the physical body, ceasing to be the embodiment of the whole man in the observable world, becomes merely a corpse (Jas. 2:26)” (3:694, Spirit – J.D.G. Dunn).
– TDNT: John’s conception of zwe as present is even more radical. This is connected with the fact that he traces the resurrection of Jesus to the fact that as the logos of God and the eternal Son of God He is life and has life in Himself, not merely as the power of His life as a living creature, but as the creative power of God. As a living creature He has a psuche and He gives it up to death (10:11, 15, 17), but His zwe is not interrupted by death (2:870, zaw – Bultmann).
d. Danny wrote: “As to the theological dictionaries and lexicons defining the terms protos and eschatos, the Bible doesn’t present “first and last†as meaning “the eternal one†(the one without a beginning).”
On the contrary, Danny’s ‘citationless’ theological opinion/bias will not allow the “first and last” to mean what the lexicons define it as.
2. The Messenger of YHWH/Agency
a. Proxy: the agency, function, or power of a person authorized to act as the deputy or substitute for another (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, page 1158).
b. What took place in Genesis 48 does not apply to agency/proxy/substitution for Jacob had already entered into the presence of the omniscient and omnipotent “God” (mentioned twice) so there was no need for him to resort to making a request to a limited created being.
c. It should be noted that the next sentence from the NIDNTT which Danny cited reads:
Hence the messenger becomes the proxy of the one who has given him the commission (cf. 1 Sam. 25:40f; 2 Sam. 10:4, 6) (1:128, Apostle – D. Muller).
Unlike with God and the Messenger of YHWH, David was not with the agents/representatives that he had sent. So for Danny to appeal to agency like some sort of mantra when it doesn’t even apply is not at all convincing. Furthermore, in the NIDNTT Schonweiss writes that “the OT suppliant never forgot that he was addressing the holy, almighty God” (2:862, Prayer). Indeed, for “prayer in the OT is characterized by being directed to the one God” (ibid., page 863). Jacob directed his prayer to the Messenger proving that this Messenger is the “almighty God” (See 5h).
3. Lord of lords
a. Danny has an extremely difficult time accepting how “supreme” is defined. Supreme means paramount/utmost. There is none higher. Danny agrees that it refers to the Lord Jesus in Revelation 17 and 19 but he will not put Christ on equality with the Father despite the fact that the Father is referred to as kurios in heaven (cf. Acts 4:29). Lord is singular while lords is plural. One and only one Lord of all other lords – not Lords of lords but Lord of lords.
b. The appeal by Danny to the fact that Nebuchadnezzar is referred to as king of kings does not help his case at all for Nebuchadnezzar was not king of all other kings in that he ruled all other kings of the entire earth. Christ however equally rules with God in all of heaven. Nebuchadnezzar was not “supreme” in that regards.
c. Mounce: John envisions him as the ruler over all the kings of the earth- “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 17:14; 19:15-16). The Roman emperor was called “king of kings” because he presided over the vassal kings of the empire, but how puny and conceited in light of the absolute sovereignty of the Lamb, the true Lord of lords (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Lord, page 423).
4. Only/Alone
a. Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary defines unique as “existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics” (page 1554) while qualification is defined as a “restriction” (page 1174). Jude 1:4 teaches that “the uniqueness of God can be applied without qualification to Jesus” (NIDNTT 2:725, One – K.H. Bartels). Thus there is no restriction in that Christ shares in the “uniqueness” (singleness) of the “only one” God.
b. Job 9:8 That the universe came into being through the Lord Jesus necessitates that He is God for Job 9:8 teaches that God created the heavens “alone”.
5. Prayer
a. Just because someone/something receives latreuw does not necessitate it ought to be done. Indeed, there are examples in the New Testament where latreuw has been misapplied (cf. Acts 7:42; Romans 1:25). I have cited several sources that demonstrate latreuw is due unto God alone while Danny informs us that Adam was worshiped (not that it was proper to do so) and “may have” (inconclusive) allowed for the worship of Christ. My citations are clear and decisive while Danny’s are vague.
b. I cited several lexicons that demonstrate that proseuxomai is due only to God. Danny cited the NIDNTT 2:867 (prayer) affirming that it can appropriately be rendered unto Christ but I previously cited Mounce that this
“is part of the proof of Jesus’ deity” (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, pray, page 531). Indeed, another part of the proof of Jesus’ deity is the fact that in Acts 1:24 where He is receiving proseuxomai He is referred to as the heartknower of all (kardiognwstes). This knowledge is something which the Jews knew referred to God alone (1 Kings 8:39) for it means He is omniscient and an omniscient Being is by definition “God”:
c. Brown: God alone can reveal the things hidden in the heart of man (1 Cor. 4:5), examine them (Rom. 8:27) and test them (1 Thess. 2:4) (2:183, Heart – T. Sorg).
And under ‘kardiognwstes’ (same page) it reads, “This belief in the omniscience of God is expressed succinctly by the adj. kardiognwstes.”
d. TDNT: the omniscient God knows the innermost being of every man where the decision is made either for Him or against Him (3:613, kardiognwstes – Baugartel, Behm).
e. On the same page in which Danny cited (NIDNTT 2:867) it reads, “In the NT prayer is in all respects as it had developed in the OT.” On page 863 it reads that an Israelite “knows too that God hears his prayer, and answers it if it is in agreement with his will.” It takes an omniscient Being to hear all these prayers and an omnipotent Being to be able to act on what was requested of Him. Thus the Lord Jesus is both omniscient and omnipotent. Christ’s omnipotence is further supported both in the TDNT and the NIDNTT.
f. TDNT: His omnipotence, in which Christ shares as kurios (1 C. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Mt. 28:18), extends over the whole world, over heaven and earth (1:679, ge – Sasse).
g. NIDNTT: In Revelation sophia is praised in two hymnic texts as an attribute of God (Rev. 7:12; cf. also Rom. 16:27); it is also to be attributed to the slain Lamb at his exaltation (Rev. 5:12). The exalted Christ has the same power and wisdom as God (NIDNTT 3:1032, Wisdom – J. Goetzmann).
h. The very first word in defining ‘omnipotent’ in Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (page 1005) is “almighty”. The subject of this debate is ‘The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is alone God Almighty’ has just been refuted in that since Christ is omnipotent it means the same thing as saying Christ is God Almighty.
It seems to me that arguing that Jesus was God comes from someone who is not all that familar with the “Word of God” as it is revealed ONLY to those who accept Jesus as God’s FIRST Created Son. This presents a paradox, doesn’t it. It is MY belief that the power of understanding FROM the Holy Spirit ONLY comes to those who accept Jesus as God’s FIRSTBORN Son out of all of the Creation. Denying God His Son —– is VERY dangerous.
It is clear to some that Jesus was NOT God – while others prefer to adopt Satan’s position that Jesus was actually God in disguise. Why is this? I believe that those who deny God’s first Son CANNOT receive the power of understanding that COULD come to them AS the Holy Spirit
I conclude that the idea of the Trinity is Satan’s position, because it makes the most sense of all as to why this false belief is being propagated. Most likely, Satan claims that his defeat at the hands of Jesus was NOT FAIR because God was deceptive, claiming to be a Son of Man, when HE was actually God. Nobody can beat God! And so Satan has continued to promote the idea of the Trinity.
It is very clear from the Scriptures that Jesus is speaking OF and TO his Father as another person.
Grow With God,
RogCat
Yes, the Father is another person.
Re 1 and 2
Marc:
I am a person. You are a person. RogCat, whom you just answered, is a person. By “person,” in normal language, we all understand person to mean three separate human individuals. I know I, an individual person, am in Texas. You, an individual person, are in the Philippines. RogCat, a third individual person is somewhere else. We are three separate individuals who are human beings.
When you told RogCat, “Yes, the Father is another person,” did you mean that he is an individual divine being, separate from Jesus his Son who is a different individual divine being–as separate from one another as individuals as you are from me, and in the same sense as you are separate from me, or in the sense that you or I are separate from RogCat?
Or do you mean “person” in some other sense? If you mean it in some other sense, would you define it for us so that we may all have a similar understanding of your intention in using the word?
Fraternally,
Danny Dixon
I still don’t understand how the Trinity can even be considered biblical since such conclusions can only be made by interpreting scripture to “imply” it. Contrasted to all the places over the entire bible where scripture explicitly states that God is one person, or the thousands of singular pronouns used. What about places where scripture is stated that “God is not a man or son of man…”? (Numbers 23:19) or that “God cannot change” (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Psalm 102:26-27; Malachi 3:6; Romans 11:29; Hebrews 6:17-18; James 1:17)
I agree with RogCat. We were created in God’s image. Not the other way around. The Trinity issue focuses so much on the physical image of Jesus being projected on to God in such a way that it’s causing the world to focus on these outward appearances instead of the true spirit of God which is pure truth and love.
We were commanded to love one another, and were told by our King Messiah that we can judge a tree by whether or not that tree bears God’s fruit. This is why God has no image, and this is the purpose of the Judaic ban on all forms of ideas, images attributed to an almighty God who has absolutely no form… so that we may recognize Him when we see him in others. That was Jesus’ wish, that we be one as he and the Father are one. (John 17:24)
When we create God in the image of man (6) and proclaim that there are now three of these images, we get a very bad number.
The additional danger is removing God from the throne, changing the nature of Messiah, and putting this replacement messiah, on God’s throne. (2 Thessalonians 3-4)
The bible is clear on who God is and Who God isn’t and speaks very plainly. It’s best to stay within the clear and “explicit” definitions of who God and His messiah are, instead of veering very far off course and believing what “seems” to be “implied” but is never directly stated. The Trinitarian position directly contradicts what is stated about God’s person as described explicitly in a myriad of biblical passages.
How can we ever get to a point where “His Banner over us is Love” if we can’t get back to the Biblical God of Israel? The bible is clear that He is ONE PERSON, not a man or son of man, He has no form and allows no image of Him or any created thing or being to be used in connection with his Worship. Why? Because we will miss the point and start arguing about moot concepts of religion/nationality/ethnicity instead of seeing what God himself TRUELY is. LOVE. Little children can see this, why can’t we?
The Jews understand that God created us as vessels to house His spirit. It’s exactly why Jesus says that the command to love our neighbors as our self is “like” the first command to love God. It is why the majority of the Law of Love is aimed at our dealings with people. If we don’t stop to realize that God indwells in us and takes on many faces, then we will never find God. The Trinitarian view makes this impossible, because of the fact that so much focus is put on the fleshly/outer appearance of the person of Christ, and not on the “inner man”, God who indwells in him. Who God really is.
For a people who were created in his image, we are made to also be one. But this Trintiarian thing is so divisive and is stopping us from being one. Because of this there is no common dialogue with Jew or Muslim, let alone any of the rest of the world’s religions… That is a huge clue. You would think that the fact that the Jews think that the Trinitarian position on who messiah is in relation to God stinks is evidence enough. These are people who had the Torah and the knowledge of Messiah 3000 years longer than Christianity. The Trinity is a serious error that only came to be in the 5th century and NOTHING good came from it. The inquisition, the crusades, the 3rd reich… all “fruits” from that tree.
I’m not eating from that tree and I’m not going to that party!
Danny,
There are three Persons of the one God.
—————————
David,
Thousands of singular pronouns do not “cancel out” the plural pronouns that are used to describe God. All of Scripture must be considered. There are passages that refer to God employing the singular pronoun while there are some that use the plural. It is not an either/or dilemma but a both/and solution.
David
I like what you said above. I agree with everything you said except where you said, “The Trinity is a serious error that only came to be in the 5th. century and NOTHING good came from it.”
I agree that the Trinity is a serious error and that nothing good ever came from it. But, from what I understand the first time the word Trinity is found written in any ancient document is around the middle, or the end, of the 2nd. century and by the end of the 4th. century the Emperor had passed a law saying, that the death penalty would be imposed on anyone who spoke against the Trinity. (So much for free speech and dialogue).
This death penalty was the first fruit of the Trinity, and like you said, it would appear that throughout history, death and destruction has been following it ever since…
Those who reject the Trinity and then spread their pernicious teaching that it is not true are guilty of spreading spiritual death to which they will be held accountable.
Marc, You keep throwing that out there and yet never quote a bible verse that says “spreading spiritual death” if we deny the trinity. You are not God’s judge and jury. I find it very interesting that the orthodox church has often used scare tactics to keep people in line with the orthodox theology. How is that’s God’s loving approach? Did Jesus ever say that the trinity leads to life? Absolutely not!
What I think would be very interesting in a debate: How many clear bible verses does each side need to describe the One True God? The fewest number wins!
By denying who the Son is those who reject the Trinity deny the Father. An unbiblical Christ is not a Christ that can save.
I am judging based on what God has already declared so therefore it is loving to tell the truth. Not to tell the truth when people are perishing would be the unloving thing to do.
Marc, Thank you for being considerate. I can therefore judge that you do have a good heart and truely are concerned with the condition of people in the world.
I can butcher a response to your position or I can refer you to another thread authored by Angela. It is not my intention to distract you from your current debate but to only give you a well written article to consider.
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2010/06/18/do-you-have-to-believe-in-the-trinity-to-be-a-christian/
In Christ,
Frank
Hello Frank,
Thank you for the article. I will address a few points:
1. Many times there is more than one way to express a truth claim. I agree that nowhere does it read in the Bible, “To be a Christian is to be a Trinitarian. To deny the Trinity is to deny Christianity†but it’s truth is clearly taught. A false god can not save – only the true Triune God can save. Eternal life is knowing the only true God (John 17:3) and to know Him is to know who the Son is. When one denies who the Son really is then one also denies the Father (1 John 2:23).
2. Romans 10:9, 10 is a concise teaching of salvation but it is certainly not exhaustive. Mormons have no problem confessing the Lordship of Jesus and believing that God hath raised Him from the dead but Mormons certainly do not have the biblical Jesus.
3. Psalm 119:160 reads that the sum of God’s word is truth. When formulating a doctrine all the words of the Bible must be considered. Furthermore, certain passages must not be embraced (i.e. Christ’s humanity) and pitted against others (i.e., Christ’s Deity).
I agree with the statement, ” When one denies who the Son really is then one also denies the Father.”
It is therefore extreamly important that we give God his due. God started out to create His children. His PLAN, was called His WORD. Jesus was the firstfruit of that WORD, according to John – – – but many people did not know that the WORD was God’s PLAN. So when God says, “Today, I have become your Father” – why not offer him congratulations? To say that Jesus was just God in disguise as a Man is just terrible!
Acts 13:32-33 ( NIV )
“We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers
he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: “‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father.’
DT,
You are right with the time line. For some reason I was correlating it with the timeline of the blatant forgery found in 1 John (5:7). It was in some material I was going over before forming a response. Lots of things rattling around up there.
MC,
From a scriptural standpoint, denying the trinity has nothing to do with denying the father or the son. It is the Nicean creed that says one is not a Christian if they deny the trinity. I will affirm until my face is blue that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God come in the flesh, died and was raised on the third day. I just don’t see any rational explanation for the ambiguity of the interpreted passages (when read to interpret the trinity), in contrast to the very specific passages that state that God is God, and He alone.
Sure the word was with God, and was God and through the word everything was made, and finally the word became flesh and dwelt with us. But to interpret this passage to mean that Jesus is God, is quite a stretch. There are passages in the bible that specifically state the opposite. Which has more weight? Explicitly written scripture written in detail, or theories based upon what the text might be implying but never says plainly or directly…
I won’t deny that Jesus is divinely appointed, he is the divinely chosen agent of God, upon whom all power and authority given by the Father rests. I wont’ deny he has equivalence of form (character/mind/will/purpose) with God; in that the fullness of God is in him. To me, he is divine in his own right, and so is anyone who has followed his example and subsequently learned obedience, yielding their own will to that of the Father’s. That is after all the purpose of discipleship, and Jesus’ very own wish. Where does the Trinity fit into this facet of God’s plan? If Jesus is the first fruits of zion, what happens when the rest are begotten of God?
Point blank, the Trinity is never discussed in the bible. It certainly is never even found in any teaching that ever had anything to do with salvation or the kingdom of God. It certainly is not found to grace the lips of Jesus, not once. It’s an unbiblical doctrine which does nothing but create divisiveness. Some trinitarian “correctore” even took it upon themselves to forge pro-trinitarian verses hundreds of years later. (see beginning of post). If the trinity was scriptural it would be found in our bibles stated specifically without tons of passages contradicting the very notion of a trinity. The fact is that it is nothing more than a pagan idea that crept it’s way into church dogma.
If spreading the the idea that The God of Israel is one God (not a triune) and that He alone is God, and that his human Messiah was born, became obedient, grew in wisdom and died for our sins and God resurrected Him from the dead… then I’m guilty and I have absolutely no remorse. Monotheism isn’t a dangerous teaching, it’s biblical.
The trinity is pagan in origin, and has more to do with Plato than Jesus and not anything hebraic. It is the teaching that turns the one true God into three, replaces messiah, turns him into an idol and dethrones God himself with his very own messiah. If it is so divinely inspired, then why has it inspired it’s “spirit-filled” pioneers to massacre billions of innocent people in it’s name? That my friend, could never be of God.
There are no passages which teach the Lord Jesus is not God. The word “Trinity” is not found but its concept is. There is more than one way to express this truth claim concerning the truth of the Triune God.
By stating Jesus has all power proves that He is the Almighty for omnipotence (all power) means to be Almighty.
Marc Taylor
You said, “There are no passages which teach the Lord Jesus is not God.”
Have you ever thought that this might be because no one in Jesus’ time would have dared to imply that a human could be God. There are many prophesies regarding the Messiah and not one of them even hints that the coming Messiah would actually be God pretending to be a human. As a matter of fact they say exactly the opposite.
In Deuteronomy 18:15 Moses says, “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet ‘LIKE ME’ from among you, ‘FROM YOUR BROTHERS’ – it is to him you shall listen -” (ESV – emphasis mine)…
Marc, God annointed Jesus with power. If Jesus was (in your words) God, why was God with him?
Acts 10:38 (REV)
that God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with
holy spirit and with power, who
went around doing good and healing
all those who were being oppressed
by the Slanderer, for God was with
him.
Marc
In msg. #16 Frank D makes an excellent point. Also in Mathew 28:18 it says, “And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.’..” (ESV)
If Yeshua/Jesus was actually God than ‘WHO’ was it that gave him “All authority in heaven and on earth.” This verse also implies that if this authority was given to him, then it could (potentially) be taken away from him at some point. In other words it wasn’t inherently his to begin with since it had to be given to him.
Therefore your statement that, “By stating Jesus has all power proves that He is the Almighty for omnipotence (all power) means to be Almighty” doesn’t seem to match with what Yeshua/Jesus himself is saying. At least in my humble opinion anywaze…
Thomas
I think Frank’s point poses a major problem for all trinitarian doctrines and most unitarian doctrines because how could Jesus be God or the son of God literally at birth and not possess the Holy spirit and power which all 4 gospels state happened at his baptism. Neither of the doctrines can exist under this statement in Acts 10:38 .
hope everyone is having a blessed Sabbath
Doubting Thomas,
If God wanted to tell us that the Lord Jesus is not God He would not have recorded in the Bible passages that teach He is God. Christ is like Moses. Like doesn’t necessitate exact correspondence.
You assume the power wasn’t inherently Chris’s. Why couldn’t Christ willingly choose not to employ it? Again, any Being that has “all-power” (omnipotent, i.e., Almighty) is by definition “God”.
—————
Frank,
God can simply denote the “Father”. It is His primary (although not His exclusive) appellation.
Marc
I don’t know of any Bible passages that teach that Yeshua/Jesus is God. I just know of verses that people say they think indirectly infers that he is God. If He were God this would have been an important revelation that wouldn’t have been left for future generations to have to indirectly infer from scriptures that don’t directly or clearly say so.
Why doesn’t the Bible come straight out and say Yeshua/Jesus is God???
Marc
You said, “Again, any Being that has ‘all-power’ (omnipotent, i.e. Almighty) is by definition ‘God’..”
Like I said, not if that Being has to depend on another Being to give him, or grant him this “all-power” in order for him to possess it…
Marc,
Thank you for your discussion. I disagree with you for now, but I appreciate you taking the time to present your case, particularly in a forum where you are outnumbered.
When you Google ‘trinity’, you get mostly criticism of the doctrine. It is helpful to hear trinitarians defend their position against the unitarian criticism. It helps me in my desire to better understand God.
Peace
I agree with Antioch. It takes some hutzpah for people to state their views in light of being outnumbered. Nevertheless, Marc’s points in the debate are informative and appreciated here.
Shabbat Shalom guys!
Doubting Thomas,
Why can’t the All-Powerful Being (Christ) “choose” to do so?
The Bible does come right out and teach that the Lord Jesus is God (See my Second Constructive above). There are more than one ways to express this truth claim.
——————–
Thank you Antioch and David.
(In response to #24)
Marc,
I’m familiar with the passages and I see the logic. I heard this once in a debate where the primary argument was the usage of similar phrases (by God and Jesus) such as “I AM” and “First/Last”. The argument was that Because Jesus spoke using the same words as God, that he must be God.
The book opens up as:
Clearly this is a revelation that YHVH gave to Jesus.
In Dueteronomy 18:18 we have:
Here we have it stating that Jesus is a prophet, and he will speak the very words of YHVH.
John 7:16
Again, Jesus acts only on God’s behalf, as God’s mouthpiece. Whatever he has, it is given to him of the Father. He also was not always the Son, he was not the Son until he was begat. He was always going to “be” the Son, but he became the first born son and the messiah after his baptism by John.
Moshiach/Messiah/Christ is the Sheliach (agent) of God. All such divinely appointed agents, magistrates, and kings were refereed to as Elohim in the Hebrew Bible (Theos in the Greek). Messiah is supposed to be God’s vicar, whom God rules the world vicariously through.
If an agent were to “rebel” against God, he would no longer be God’s agent and would loose all anointing and power and authority. We see this happen time and again in the Tenakh/OT with the corrupt rulers and leaders of old.
Jesus speaking the words that God speaks does not identify him as God, the bible is clear that he is speaking God’s words in his stead. Unlike any other prophet however, this is the King Messiah, he speaks for God always. Jesus speaking the words of the father do not make him God. It is the fulfillment of prophesy that God would raise a prophet ruler, and put his very own words in his mouth. Jesus is the living, breathing pure manifestation of the word of God made flesh, he is our example to live by as we are his disciples, friends, and brother; children of God and he is our King. The person and role of Jesus must be understood in the context of the entirety of scripture, precept upon precept. A few ambiguous statements, cannot be interpreted in a way that alters or nullifies the rest of scripture, as the “scriptures cannot be broken…”
The two points given in Revelation as “self identifiers” really only prove that Jesus speaks the Father’s words.
David
I agree that Marc has a lot of hutzpah to state his views in light of being outnumbered. I also appreciate the fact that he is very polite and respectful (unlike some other people we’ve had who came to this site). I also like what you said in msg. #25 above. It is very eloquent and to the point. I wish I had the ability to write as well as that.
You quoted Deuteronomy 18:18 which basically repeats what is said in 18:15, “The Lord will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers….”
I don’t see how God can be considered to be someone “from among you, from your brothers….” There are also many scriptures that say that the Messiah will be the son of David. I don’t see how God can be considered to be the son of David either. The scriptures also say that the Messiah will be prophet like Moses. I don’t see how God can be considered to be a prophet like Moses.
From my point of view this pretty much rules out the possibility of God being the Messiah that was prophesied in so many of the OT scriptures…
Hello David,
Elohim could refer to others for it is a general title of authority. However the same can not be said concernin such appellations as “the First and the Last”.
Furthemore, the fact that he is the proper recipient of prayer demonstartes that He is God. Only an omnipotent Being can act on such prayers received. And an omnipotent Being is by defintion an Almighty Being.
Jesus was the first one to die on the cross as his reward for completing his creation – – – and he is the last of Man who will have to do that. He is also the first BORN Son of God who had to return to Earth to finish out a life as a human – – – and he is the last who will ever be asked to do that, again.
On the other point, I seem to recall that Jesus said that if we pray to God in Jesus’ name, then the Father will grant our requests. I can’t recall anywhere that Jesus said to pray to him. Jesus did say, of course, that he was the mediator between us and God – – – that nobody goes to the Father, except through the Son. If we factor the Trinity into this, the words of Jesus make NO SENSE at all!
John 16:22-23 ( NIV ) {Emphasis added}
So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy. In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.
John 14:6 ( NIV )
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Sean,
Is it only me, or do is this a desperate scare attempt? Can we please get something more substantial from this gentleman? Not only that, but doesn’t his feeble statement above violate one of the terms of the blog?
“Communication Policyâ€
7. Disrespect towards others (i.e. sarcastic statements intended to belittle, inappropriate labeling of people, overly critical demeanor towards a certain person, etc.)
Regards,
Jaco
P.S. I hope in future the debaters we have on here will have something more solid to present. I do not think that the mindless parroting and repeating of unproven statements without substantial argumentation prove anything. We expect this from high-school students, really.
RogCat,
The context of John 16:23 has to do with the apostles not asking Christ anymore questions concerning His figurative teachings concerning His resurrection (John 16:18). “In that day” refers to when the apostles will see the Lord Jesus after He is resurrected (John 14:19, 20). The conjunction “and” (kai) that begins verse 23 relates to what was stated in verse 22 – the resurrection. “Therefore you too now have sorrow, but I will see you again, and your heart will rejoice, and no one takes your joy from you. “AND” in that day you will ask Me no question.”
There are plenty of passages where Christ is properly prayed to. Some of them are:
Acts 1:24, 25
Acts 7:59
Romans 10:13
1 Corinthians 1:2
2 Corinthians 12:8
2 Timothy 2:22
Revelation 22:3
Revelation 22:20
Furthermore Christ is the recipeint of several doxologies (hymns of praise to God) as found in 2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18 and Revelation 1:5, 6.
———————
Jaco,
Get something substantial?
1. How about accepting what the lexicons say concerning the First and the Last”?
2. What of the fact that we have only one Master in heaven and that is the Lord Jesus Christ (Jude 1:4) but the Father is also our Master?
3. How about that Christ properly receives prayer demonstrates His omnipotence which is the same thing as saying he is Almighty?
4. What of the fact that the Father was not being prayed to by Jacob in Genesis 48:16?
Before making unfounded assertion please do some more investigation to what I have asserted.
When I give Jesus a praise to God,
I praise his holy name.
From this age forward, forever the same,
Just as he was before the beginning begain.
What I’m saying is this, that to praise the name of Jesus is to speak the wonderful works of God. (For it is God who worketh in him to will and to do of his good pleasure. It’s in the word. This is a great mystery.)
By praying to Him one can not deny that He is omnipotent (Almighty).
Marc Taylor
When Yeshua/Jesus taught his disciples to pray he told them to pray “Our Father.” In other words to pray to Yeshua’s/Jesus’ Father as well as our Father. There is nothing wrong with saying the occasional prayer to Yeshua/Jesus who is sitting at the right hand of God and is our mediator. But from my reading of the scriptures the majority of our prayers and praises should be directed to the Father/Creator, God Almighty…
Genesis 48:14-16
14And Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on the head of Manasseh, crossing his hands (for Manasseh was the firstborn). 15And he blessed Joseph and said,
“The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked,
the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day,
16the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys;
and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac;
and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.â€
Marc, So in your opinion, when Israel is saying “the angel who has redeemed me from all evil” you think Israel is referring to whom?
…please remember…
Hebrews 1:5
To which of the angels did God say at any time, You are my Son, this day I have given you being? or, I will be his Father, and he will be my Son?
So the question should be: What did Israel mean when he said “the angel who redeemed me from all evil”? It should not be assumed to refer to anyone other than an angel.
Marc,
In msg. #11 you said, “I agree that nowhere does it read in the bible, ‘To be a Christian is to be a Trinitarian. To deny the Trinity is to deny Christianity” but it’s truth is clearly taught.”
The fact is that “it’s truth is (not) clearly taught” otherwise Danny and all the rest of us would not be having this conversation with you. What you actually mean to say is that in ‘your opinion’ it is inferred. And Danny and the rest of us have shown you that these verses can also be inferred to support our position as well.
If (as your claim) that we must all believe in the Trinity to achieve salvation, then why is it not ‘CLEARLY’ written in the scriptures that “To be a Christian is to be a Trinitarian.” Or that “To deny the Trinity is to deny Christianity.” If this really were a salvation issue than certainly the writers of the scriptures wouldn’t have just ‘hoped’ that future generations would properly infer this from ‘NON-SPECIFIC’ verses.
You went on to say in the same message, “A false God cannot save – only the true Triune God can save.”
If that were true certainly the writers of the scriptures would have made at least one unambiguous statement regarding the fact that God is a Triune God. The fact that there is no unambiguous verse demonstrates that this claim of yours above simply cannot be true. I personally believe that God will forgive anyone who has mistaken beliefs about his nature (Trinity etc…). I think it is clear from the scriptures that God is much more interested in our behavior (how we treat others) than in what our beliefs might or might not be.
In msg. #19 you said, “If God wanted to tell us that the Lord Jesus is not God He would not have recorded passages in the Bible that teach He is God.”
Again he did ‘NOT’ record any passages in the Bible that teach “He is God.” You just claim that you can infer (indirectly) that he is God from your own personal interpretation of certain scriptures. If Yeshua/Jesus was God this would have been an important revelation. So, why is not clearly spelled out or stated anywhere in the scriptures that Yeshua/Jesus is God???
In the same msg. you also said, “Christ is like Moses. Like does not necessitate exact correspondence.”
How can God Almighty be said to be like Moses. You must admit that a human being born in Bethlehem and who grew up to not only to be a great prophet, but the Messiah, as prophesied in the same chapter that said, “he would be like Moses, from among you, from your brothers” makes a lot more sense then trying to twist this prophecy around to try to fit your belief that the Messiah was actually God Almighty himself.
In msg. #24 you asked me, “Why can’t the All-Powerful Being (Christ) choose to do so?”
Here you are claiming that Yeshua/Jesus gave up his “All Power” to someone else in order to become human. Then later on this other person gave him his “All Power” back again. The obvious question is, ‘WHO’ did Yeshua/Jesus give up his “All Power” to???
If you decide to answer this question it will also answer the unanswered question that I asked in msg. #17 which said, “If Yeshua/Jesus was actually God then ‘WHO’ was it that gave him ‘All authority in heaven and on earth’???”
From what I can see you repeatedly say this verse infers this and that verse infers that and then you conclude that these things are clearly taught in the Bible. You must have different definition of what clearly taught means than I do. If the bible doesn’t clearly and unambiguously state that ‘Jesus is God’ then than the reality is it is only inferred (in your opinion). Danny and the rest of have shown you we infer these same verses to mean something else.
If the Bible doesn’t clearly and unambiguously state that “To be a Christian is to be a Trinitarian” or that “To deny the Trinity is to deny Christianity” then the reality is it is only inferred (in your opinion). But you keep claiming “it’s truth is clearly taught.” In other words your conclusions in no way reflect your evidence. In other words you can’t infer something (indirectly) and than turn around and say it is clearly taught. At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…
Doubting Thomas,
In post #11 point #3 I pointed out that the Bible declares that the sum of God’s word is truth (Psalm 119:160). The fact that Christ receives any prayers at all necessitates His omnipotence.
The Trinity is clealy taught but there will be those who simply refuse to accept it. Just because something is clear does not mean all will embrace it. That is true with many other things in life.
——–
Frank,
Jacob is praying to this Messenger to bless His family in that they would grow into a multitude. The Lord Jesus is a descendant of Jacob. I am not asserting that it refers to anyone but the Messenger but it does prove that Jacob was not praying to YHWH here so thus He attributed omnipotence (the fact of being “Almighty”) to someone else other than the Father.
So, there is prayer to someone other than God….
Yes, and that being the Lord Jesus demanding tha He is Almighty.
Though I pray to God at all times, I trust that Christians do at times address the Lord Jesus. I know that some do. One married couple that was in a group I was with once, prayed differently. One prayed to God the Father and the other one prayed to the Lord Jesus. One always prayed one way, the other always prayed the other way and they were happily married.
I do believe Jesus is the Lord Almighty who will judge heaven and earth. Jesus holds all the power of God Almighty, all the keys to the kingdom, and all the throne of God is his.
Marc,
You said, “The fact that Christ receives any prayers at all necessitates his omnipotence.”
Why? It makes perfect sense to me that the person who is sitting at the right hand of God and has been given all authority in heaven and on earth could also receive prayers. Especially since part of his job is being a mediator between us and God Almighty.
As far as omnipotence you continue to refuse to answer the question that I asked in msg. #17 and again in msg. #35 which asked, “If Yeshua/Jesus was actually God then ‘WHO’ was it that gave him ‘All authority in heaven and on earth’???”
You said that you believe he chose to give up this “All Power”. The obvious question that follows then, which you keep trying to avoid, is to ‘WHO’ did he choose to give up this “All Power” to??? And ‘WHO’ was this person that then chose to give this “All Power” back to him at a later date???
Like I have repeatedly said, if someone has to rely on another Being to give them ‘All authority in heaven and on earth’ then this person is obviously not omnipotent but dependent on this other Being (his Father/God Almighty) to give him, or grant him this authority.
I don’t see how you can continue to say that Yeshua/Jesus is omnipotent, especially considering he clearly states that he does not know the day or the hour of the end times (or when he will return). In Mathew 24:36 Yeshua/Jesus says, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
You also said, “The Trinity is clearly taught but there will be those who simply refuse to accept it. Just because something is clear does not mean all will embrace it.”
How can you keep repeating over and over again that “The Trinity is clearly taught” when there is no scripture that explicitly (clearly/directly) states that Yeshua/Jesus is God nor is there any scripture that says explicitly (clearly/directly) that the Holy Spirit is God nor is the word Trinity found in any ancient document until near the end of the second century???
What do you mean by ‘clearly taught’??? Do you mean that because you can imply this indirectly through various verses that your opinion on how we should interpret these verses is indisputable???
Do you mean that if someone else interprets these verses differently than you then their interpretation is therefore not ‘clearly taught’ since you disagree with this other interpretation???
You seem to like to make up your own definitions. If you can infer or imply something indirectly this somehow translates into ‘clearly taught’. If you say that 3 independent and separate individuals are actually one person, then we are just to accept this as fact, even though you have no clear, direct, implicit, or non ambiguous scripture to back you up.
It seems like what your actually saying is that, if you believe something is true than it therefore logically follows that it is ‘clearly taught’ and if someone else believes something to be true, that you don’t agree with, then it logically follows that this other thing is not ‘clearly taught’.
In my opinion for something to be ‘clearly taught’ it must be clearly, directly, and implicitly taught with no ambiguities. You can’t just make a bunch of statements like, Yeshua/Jesus is God or the Trinity is necessary for salvation with no explicit, implicit, and clear scriptures to back you up, and then somehow claim it is ‘clearly taught’.
But I have already explained all this to you in msg. #35 above and you keep ignoring everything that I have said (including the questions I repeatedly ask) and just keep stating the same things over and over again.
I’m not trying to be rude or anything but this is just the way it appears to me…
Doubting Thomas,
Your comments are too long. The fact that Christ is able to act on the prayers He receives demands He is omnipotent. In fact, that is what kardiognwstes means in Acts 1:24. Some choose to deny and/or make up defintions for the Greek words involved when they are not in accord with one’s theology. I hope this isn’t the case here.
Thomas
You are 100% correct in your views and your points are right on,
BUT you will never convince Mark because he refuses to see the true facts and meanings.
Thanks for addressing kardiognwstes.
In Acts 10, Peter struggled with the issue of gentiles being baptized with the Spirit. Acts 10:47 Peter says, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”
Substitute ‘gentiles’ with ‘unitarians’ (or ‘trinitarians’ as it is vice versa). Just one unitarian who has received the spirit renders the doctrine of the trinity unessential and therefore false.
Marc,
Where in the bible does it say that Jesus accepts our prayers?
Nevermind, I must have skipped over your post above.
Marc,
You said, “There are plenty of passages where Christ is properly prayed to.”
You are in error, my friend. These are not prayers of adoration, but simply requests to GOD on behalf of Jesus. Jesus told the Apostles that they could ask anything of God in the name of Jesus.
Many of your references are simply prayers TO God, who is LORD.
However, on that point, God did instruct the Angels to worship HIS new Son, Jesus. But our worship should go, first, to God.
I contend that Jesus IS a MAN – – – the FIRST product of God’s WORD (ie PLAN) to create His children. What’s the problem with granting God His firstborn? The Trinity does just that! It denies that Jesus came in the flesh (Jesus did say that he was a son of MAN) – – – claiming, instead, that God came in the flesh — disguised, at that. I can just hear Satan claiming that his defeat was unfair, because Jesus was actually God – – – and nobody can beat God.
RogCat,
Requests to God on the behalf of Jesus? No, they are directed TO Jesus.
Those who deny the Trinity basically fall into one of two errors. Chriss can be prayed to /worshiped but this does not prove that He is God. Unfortunately for them the Greek words don’t accord at all with what they believe and second Christ is not prayed to. Unfortunately for them there are several passages that teach otherwise. If you or anyone else is so confident that hrist is not prayed To or is worshiped then have a personal debate with me concerning this subject.
Re 48
I am translating directly from the 27th edition of the Nestle text at John 14:14:
“Whenever you ask me anything en my name I will do [it].”
The Greek is a little odd, and for that reason scribes tried to change it by either taking out the “me” or by changing the “me” to “the Father” to make it harmonize with John 16:23. But the manuscript evidence of the reading above “is adequately supported” by some of the best manuscripts “and seems to be appropriate in view of its correlation with ego [“I”] later in the verse” (Metzger, and others, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2 nd Edition, p. 208).
Marc’s argument is not so much based on the point of whether it is this verse, accurate as it is, that Jesus can be prayed to but that latreuo is used of Jesus. I have seen no problem in this for a couple of reasons.
First I can accept that latreuo is reasonably applied to Jesus in Revelation 22:3 where “his†servants can be seen to refer back to either God or to the lamb in the verse. The Greek is ambiguous, but I do not see that as a problem.
It is because of John 5:23, which is reasonably understood that it is God’s it is granted by God that since he receives honor, the Son also may receive honor. With that authority that God has given to Jesus (“all authority in heaven and on earth,†Matthew 18:18) comes the ability to exercise that authority. Jesus’ omniscience, ability to answer prayer, etc. are not inherent, they are given to him by God.
Second is the fact that latreuo is used in Greek literature of those who have God’s image. I’ve discussed this already in my Rebuttal 2b as follows:
I don’t think Marc has addressed this very significant point.
Exegesis involves acknowledging how words are used in the target language. The word latreuo is used of a human, namely Adam, in a passage of writing that is even thematically cogent to the present discussion. Will Marc address it. It is a usage fit for discussion of why it is so used. But that has been done: The reasonable explanation is that if one is in God’s image, if one has that granted authority, one may properly be served as latreuo describes. That, of course, has been my argument all along.
Marc,
You said, “Your comments are too long.”
I am sorry if you think my comments are too long, but at least I try to explain why I believe what I believe. I suppose if I were like you and just repeatedly stated my beliefs without any explanation, then my messages would probably be as short as yours. However this wouldn’t make for much of a conversation would it???
You also said, “The fact that Christ is able to act on the prayers He receives demands He is omnipotent.”
No it doesn’t. Like I have repeatedly said, over and over again, it just means that he was given “All authority in heaven and on earth” just like it says in Mathew 28:18. In msg. #17 I quoted word for word what it says in Mathew 28:18 (ESV version). Then (for the first time) I asked you, “WHO was it that gave him “All authority in heaven and on earth???” This verse clearly has Yeshua/Jesus saying that it was given to him by someone.
I have repeated this above question several times now. I have even expanded it (in both msg. #35 + #40) to ask, “WHO did he choose to give this ‘All Power’ up to ???” Since you seemed to imply that you believed that Yeshua/Jesus chose to give up his “All Power” as you put it. If I am misunderstanding you, then please explain what it is that you actually mean.
It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have a conversation with someone that refuses to explain why it is they believe something, and then on top of that also refuses to answer repeated questions concerning what their beliefs are…
All authority means all power – omnipotent = Almighty
The Father gave it to Him.
If anyone has all power for any period of time then that necessitates they are Almighty.
Thanks for not rambling on so much.
Marc,
Thanks for explaining yourself clearly. You said, “The Father gave it to Him.”
This is exactly what I believe as well. The part of the Trinitarian doctrine that I don’t understand is, if Yeshua/Jesus is God then that means he is his own Father. So how could he give the “All Power” to himself??? I’m not trying to be trite, I really don’t understand how you can reconcile the fact that Yeshua/Jesus is supposedly independent and separate from the Father, and yet at the same time be the same person as the Father.
You also said, “If anyone has all power for any period of time then that necessitates they are Almighty.”
Like I have repeatedly said, not if they have to rely on someone else for that power. If the “All Power” was given to Yeshua/Jesus then it couldn’t have inherently been his to begin with. If you inherently had a good sense of humor, then someone couldn’t turn around and give you a good sense of humor.
You also said, “Thanks for not rambling on so much.”
I will try not to ramble in the future. My wife use to say I rambled as well…
Hello DT,
Not sure what you mean how Christ is His own Father. He isn’t. They are of the same Being but not Person.
There are passages which demonstrate He is God while others demonstrate His distinctiveness.
Even if someone had to rely on someone for that power it would not negate being Almighty. Why couldn’t Christ willingly relinquish the use of all power while on earth to the Father and agree that he would receive it back again at His exultation?
TDNT: Elsewhere, however, it is said of the Redeemer during His earthly life that He has laid aside His power and appeared in lowliness and humility, Mt. 11:29; 12:18-21; 2 C. 8:9; Phil. 2:5-8 -> kenow 3, 661, 13-28, cf. the temptation of Jesus, Mt. 4:8 f. par. Lk. 4:5 f. Thus, when the full power of Jesus is occasionally mentioned during the time of His humiliation, it is merely a proleptic fact.
A new situation is brought into being with the crucifixion and resurrection. The Chosen One seizes the full power which He had from the beginning of the world, Mt. 28:18: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (5:895, pas – Reicke).
I am thankful for word limits in debates. I know some things need to be explained but I have so very often seen people go on and on like it was some kind of 2 hour sermon.
Marc,
You said, “Not sure what you mean how Christ is his own Father. He isn’t. They are of the same being not person.”
Thank you for clarifying what you believe on this. I still don’t really understand how someone could be of the same being and yet at the same time be a different person. To me a human being is one person. Two human beings are two people, etc… I do realize that there are a lot of people that share your belief in the Trinity, but the basic concept just doesn’t make any sense to me.
You also said, “Why couldn’t Christ willingly relinquish the use of all power while on earth to the Father and then agree that he would receive it back again at his exultation?”
I personally don’t believe Yeshua/Jesus existed (other then being planned from the beginning) prior to his birth in Bethlehem. I know there is a wide variety of beliefs, even on this site, about this.
You also said, “I know some things need to be explained but I have so often seen people go on and on like it was some kind of 2 hour sermon.”
I didn’t mean to be sermonizing. I was just trying to explain my point of view to the best of my ability. I am far cry from being a great writer. May the peace of God be with you and with all of us…
The nature of God is not predicated on how man arbitrarily chooses to think (reason) about Him (Acts 17:29) but rather on how Scripture actually reveals Him (Acts 17:11). Even “now we see in a mirror dimly” when it comes to knowing the things of God (1 Corinthians 13:12).
2. Those who reject the deity of Christ because it can not be fully understood readily affirm their own existence despite having an incomplete understanding of its physical and spiritual composition (Matthew 5:36; 6:27; Romans 7:15-25). Furthermore, we should not reject the omniscience nor the greatness of God despite the fact that both are beyond the reach of complete human understanding (Psalms 139:6; 145:3).
3. If one can accept the Scriptural testimony concerning the acts of God (miracles) then we should accept from the same Scriptures describing the nature of God even though both can not be fully explained.
Sorry if I came across that you were sermonizing.
Marc,
If I may share a few things. This is not only for you, but for the entire group as well. I want to apologize ahead of time if this post seems long.
I think you are correct and have established that Jesus/Yeshua is All-Powerful/Omnipotent. “All power in heaven and earth has been given to Me.” Matthew 28:18 I too would also agree that this is self explanatory and that Jesus is all-powerful.
I still don’t think that his authority or even plausible divinity of Messiah has anything to do with proving that God exists as a Triune. Although I am not a trinitarian, I too agree that God and Messiah are united in the same being and are also separate persons. However I also do not believe the Holy Spirit is a person. In the hebrew language Holy Spirit is “Ruach HaKodesh”, literally “Breath of The Holy”. I do however believe that all three are united in one way or another.
I myself reserve a view of God that I’ve come to from profound personal revelation. Later I was astonished to find that it was also shared by some Jewish sages, namely the late Hassidic Rabbis Israel ben Eliezer, the Baal Shem Tov and Rabbi Menahem Mendel. It is a quasi-panentheistic view of the person of God. This is a view that I’m not sure how many hold it here as well, but there might be a couple.
This view still maintains that God is still one singular person with His own personality. He is still an “I”, if you will. Although He is still one person, His being permeates all of (but not limited to) created existence, especially humankind, and especially those who believe and are obedient to walk in His ways.
A good illustration of this would be of likening God to the ocean. Creation and mankind and we are like drops of water and the marine life who inhabit the ocean. We make our home in the ocean, receive our sustenance from the water, even our physical bodies are of mostly water. We cannot exist or survive outside of that water. There is a complex unity at play here.
The exegesis of the Rabbis explains that God “expanded” to make room for creation within Himself. All of creation took place “inside” the void created when He expanded. He filled the void inside with light, and then creation unfolded. Thus according to the Rabbis, everything we know is inside of God, and besides/outside God there is nothing; outside of God there can’t be anything… as “there is none else beside Himâ€.
Under this paradigm people can chose to operate in one of two ways. Either in obedience to God serving Him in loving kindness to the benefit of the whole of creation; and by doing create a better world. On the other hand working in self-serving ways.
Just like the tiniest of members within a body, we can choose to be either life-giving or cancerous. We can help the whole of creation, or work to destroy it. By blessing one another we are blessing not only our selves but God who is in us, or we can sin against each other and God.
This paradigm maintains that Satan is subordinate to God, and only exists to make our choice to be obedient to God meaningful. It also means we should see humankind as a whole, regardless of being divided into groups, nationalities, religions, races, creeds. Instead of discerning through such aforementioned superficial means, we should discern by weather or not we see the fruits of God’s spirit within a persons life and actions.
Thus, God is the true “person”. His soul is the collective soul of every living being and then some. His actual make-up is completely unfathomable as this concept of Him cannot even be truly defined, shaped, drawn, spoken of. It cannot even be conceived or grasped by the human mind. Although it seems He would be impersonal by nature he is not, as he has revealed himself to us in Jesus and the scriptures. The only way to define Him is by how great He is and isn’t, and what His character is or isn’t.
This worldview allows God to be present in every smile, every helping hand, every sustaining drink of water or food. He is there in children’s laughter, in a warm hug, in a piece of chocolate cake… He is there in our less than desired moments, tribulations, tests, and trials.
Because of His nature and our relation to Him in this new sense, no matter how far one can possibly travel, could we get away from him. Even if it were possible to travel to the edges of the universe and beyond, God would still be there.
Because of our relation to him in this sense, if one could possibly travel “outside” the reaches of God so that they could look upon Him and actually “see” him, they would die. None would live, because it would be impossible to live outside of God.
I believe God is the supreme source of life, from whom all things receive their life-giving spirit. Christ is our physical King and our leader, the “Prince” of God that will sit on David’s throne. We are his loyal subjects that are members/cells of his body. We all have a part to play in His kingdom, and it is up to us weather or not we are in or out.
Thus I too believe God is a complex unity, thus I see a “form” of trinity of sorts; albeit not the Nicean flavor. Nicean Trinitarianism not only doesn’t make sense to me scripturally, but also because it conceptually removes us from God – placing Him and His Messiah somewhere “outside” of us, leaving us as orphans – making our God foreign to us.
Just sharing, for the purpose of sharing. I apologize if my post is rather long, but thought I should explain since it is a view that some may or may not be familiar with.
Hello David and thank you.
I suppose a future debate could be about the personality/Deity of the Holy Spirit.
In panentheism is God both finite and infinite as well as temporal and eternal at the same time?
Re 48
Sorry, All, but I’ve been trying to post this since 7:30 CST this morning. I’ll try yet again.
I am translating directly from the 27th edition of the Nestle text at John 14:14:
“Whenever you ask me anything en my name I will do [it].”
The Greek is a little odd, and for that reason scribes tried to change it by either taking out the “me” or by changing the “me” to “the Father” to make it harmonize with John 16:23. But the manuscript evidence of the reading above “is adequately supported” by some of the best manuscripts “and seems to be appropriate in view of its correlation with ego [“I”] later in the verse” (Metzger, and others, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2 nd Edition, p. 208).
Marc’s argument is not so much based on the point of whether it is this verse, accurate as it is, that Jesus can be prayed to but that latreuo is used of Jesus. I have seen no problem in this for a couple of reasons.
First I can accept that latreuo is reasonably applied to Jesus in Revelation 22:3 where “his†servants can be seen to refer back to either God or to the lamb in the verse. The Greek is ambiguous, but I do not see that as a problem.
It is because of John 5:23, which is reasonably understood that it is God’s it is granted by God that since he receives honor, the Son also may receive honor. With that authority that God has given to Jesus (“all authority in heaven and on earth,†Matthew 18:18) comes the ability to exercise that authority. Jesus’ omniscience, ability to answer prayer, etc. are not inherent, they are given to him by God.
Second is the fact that latreuo is used in Greek literature of those who have God’s image. I’ve discussed this already in my Rebuttal 2b as follows:
I don’t think Marc has addressed this very significant point.
Part of exegesis involves acknowledging how words are used in the target language. The word latreuo is used of a human, namely Adam, in a passage of writing that is even thematically cogent to the present discussion. Will Marc address it. It is a usage fit for discussion of why it is so used. But that has been done: The reasonable explanation is that if one is in God’s image, if one has that granted authority, one may properly be served as latreuo describes. That, of course, has been my argument all along.
Danny,
I already addressed it. You are confusing is and ought. Just because something is happening doesn’t mean it ought to happen. Latreuw was rendered unto idols but that doesn’t mean it ought to have been (Acts 7:42; Romans 1:25).
Marc:
I am confusing nothing. I understand that in exegesis of biblical texts it is important to see how a word is used in the context of the community where the word appears.
My point is that latreuo was used in the Greek community in various ways, including worship of false gods, worship of men, and worship of the one true God. Actually, long before the Greeks knew about the one true God, they were already using it of their own gods.
Your point seemed to be that if the word is used at all, then it was to be used to identify a god or The One True God. The question of what people OUGHT to do or what IS true of what they do is a secondary issue with respect to the terminology.
When I demonstrated that latreuo is also used in the Greek community in the Sibylline Oracles of a man, namely Adam, I was trying to illustrate that the Greek culture can support the usage of the word in its application to God, to gods, or to men. That being the case, it is not improper for one to understand that such a word is therefore NOT limited to worship of God/gods.
It becomes a question of theological understanding and justification as to whether or not latreuo should be used in this or that case. That being said, the real questions, which you are not understanding, are these: Is there ever an appropriate time to render latreuo to God? The answer is Yes. Is there ever an appropriate time to render latreuo to gods? The answer is No. Is there ever an appropriate time to render latreuo to men? The answer is Yes.
There is adequate biblical warrant to worship Yahweh. There is adequate biblical proscription of worship to pagan gods. The is adequate biblical support for recognizing an entities agent as being considered equal to the sender in contexts where authority is to be appreciated.
The theological question is what is to be considered here, not the lexical question for clearly the lexical evidence shows that in a certain circumstance context would permit giving latreuo to a man, namely, when that person exists in the image of God. That Adam is a person to be properly considered as one in the image of God in the sense of authority may be a theological question.
That there is a recognized body of evidence considering Adam-Jesus Christology is clear (See James Dunn’s Christology in the Making, 2nd edition, or his comments on Philippians 2:6ff, and you will see that I am travelling well worn ground in the scholarly world on even the Trinitarian side.) You OUGHT to deal with the argumentation of the scholarly article that I cited, that Jesus was one who was in the image of God as Adam was in the image of God (See the eikon morphe synonymic relationship as discussed there) to see why it could easily be considered theologically permissible to apply latreuo to Christ the man.
True, you have cited scholars who provide no argument for their positions, but who have a leaning for a Trinitarian point of view. This is not any more helpful to the readership than it would be for me simply to cite scholars who hold a Unitarian point of view. It is the discussion and argumentation of the scholars that OUGHT to be weighed, not the names of the scholars associated with the points of view.
Danny Dixon
Marc (msg. #55),
You said, “The nature of God is not predicated on how man arbitrarily chooses to think (reason) about him (Acts 17:29) but rather on how scripture actually reveals him (Acts 17:11).”
I agree completely. Just like the Jews in Acts 17:11, I also carefully studied the scriptures with an open mind. That’s how I came to my Socinian/Unitarian beliefs. This idea that you proposed above in msg. #53, that Yeshua/Jesus and God are of the same being, but not the same person, would have been a completely foreign idea to the Jews in that time period.
Even I can’t understand how someone can be of the same being and yet not be the same person. Yet there is no evidence in the scriptures of Peter and the Apostles, or anyone else, trying to explain this brand new complex idea that 3 persons could exist together as one being. There is no evidence that the Scribes or Pharisees were upset that their ‘One God’ was being changed into a ‘Three (persons) in One’ type of God.
Arbitrarily thinking that God must be a Triune God does not make him so. Like I have said in my messages above you need to have at least one explicit, direct, clear passage that states this. You can’t just take a bunch of various unspecific and vague passages, which we have shown you can be interpreted differently, and then infer or imply it to mean something that is apparently illogical and which goes against the common sense that God has given us.
There is no scripture that clearly says that Yeshua/Jesus is God or that clearly says that God died on the cross for our salvation. I have no problem with someone inferring something from scripture as long as it is logical, and makes sense. You can’t expect someone to believe something that apparently doesn’t make any sense…
David (msg. #56),
You said, “Although I am not a trinitarian, I too agree that God and Messiah are united in the same being and are also separate persons.”
You went on to say, “Thus God is the true ‘person’. His soul is the collective soul of every living being and then some.”
If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that all mankind are united in the same being (God) and are also separate persons as well. I guess that is one way to look at it. The way I look at is that as God’s children a part of God is within us and will guide us (if we are willing to listen to him).
What is a conscience???
Why are human’s the only beings on earth that feel guilt, shame, etc…???
From my point of view, our conscience (or our heart) is God’s nature that is within us. Since we are God’s children, made in his image, then it is only logical that we would possess part of God’s nature within each and every one of us. We are all given the choice of either following that nature (conscience/heart) or ignoring it and behaving no better than any other animal on the planet.
Whenever that nature shows, and our light shines for the world to see, God is proud of us. When we hide this nature/light that is inside of all of us, then God is ashamed of us. Of course I am just a layman, and this is all just my own personal opinion.
Shalom…
Danny,
It doesn’t matter if latreuw was used of Greek gods for we are dealing with the New Tetsamnet usage of the word. It is used only of God or of heathen deities. You have to make the decision as to which category Christ belongs.
——-
DT,
The fact that Christ properly receives prayer is all the explanation needed that affirms He is omniscient and omnipotent – God. There is more than one way to express the truth claim other than saying “Jesus is God” and prayers to Him prove this. In fact, there is no Scripture that just says “Jesus is not God”.
“In fact, there is no Scripture that just says ‘Jesus is not God'”
This is pretty close, considering Jesus referred to himself as ‘son of man’…
Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?
Antioch,
At that time the Lord Jesus was not a man.
I wince to think God parses words. That ‘Yahweh echad’ really means 3 in 1.
Refuted in post #63 so now changes the subject.
Good day,
I apologise to my fellow bloggers for my irregular participation lately. School, work and other exacting activities limit me immensely. I hope you’ll understand.
To turn to our issues at hand…
Mr Taylor, you are in no way different from the naïve JW parroting what their Watchtower authorities have to say regarding many unique sectarian interpretations. Like those JWs, you can only repeat what interpretive “lexicons†have to say, can’t you? You haven’t provided the interpretive apparatus by which you reach your conclusion above. Logically speaking, thus, your conclusion is reached via one huge slippery slope of (yet unknown) logical leaps. The onus rests on you to show that sharing a title between two entities implies identity of the two entities.
We’re all waiting for your logically sound exegesis.
I answered your statement above. The ball is in your court to refute what I have written. To refute, not repeat your refuted claim ad nauseam, please. I said:
To return to Jude 4, you said,
Your argument fails on several grounds. This is what I said:
You are thus arguing from silence, since this text does not show how the “one master,†Jesus, relate to Almighty God. Despotes has a range of meanings or nuances in which it could apply to anyone. Someone’s identity is the prerequisite for determining the extent to that one’s mastery or ownership over others. Not the other way around. You conveniently over-extend its application by applying it absolutely to Jesus. Neither the word (despotes) nor Jude’s Christology (vs. 25) allows for your post-biblical doctrinal superimposition upon this text. While Jesus and Almighty God could be our “Masters†in various senses, “True God†can only be thus in one sense. Other than your Jude reference, the reference in John 17:3 clearly relates Jesus to Almighty God. Not only in the greater context, where Jesus is clearly an agent, but also immediately:
John 5:24, “‘I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my message and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, but has crossed over from death to life.’â€
John 12:44-45, “But Jesus shouted out, ‘The one who believes in me does not believe in me, but in the one who sent me, and the one who sees me sees the one who sent me.’â€
You said yourself:
Anyone else claiming the position of the True God should thus be regarded as false gods. Jesus states that Someone ELSE, OTHER than himself is the True God, also EXCLUDING himself, since his Father is the True God ALONE (monos).
I think many trinitarians reading this explanation and experiencing the doctrinal dilemma this obviously caused will expect you to do better than merely repeating your refuted claims.
Your reference to “prayer†needs to be defined, please. What Greek word are you using? Proskyneo? Proseuchomai? Where is it unambiguously shown that proskyneo can only be rendered to God Almighty? Where is it unambiguously shown that the recipient of proseuchomai is Lord Messiah and not Lord God?
Secondly, since you would communicate to your friend on the other side of the planet through modern technology, how would you expect anyone else to communicate to our Lord Messiah? He is not absent, is he? He is certainly not in the grave, is he? Your either-or invention regarding prayer is indeed a false dilemma.
Thirdly, to argue that receiving proskyneo, since he is in heaven, by necessity makes Jesus Almighty God, is another point of special pleading. As the ultimate Sh’liach or Apostle (Heb. 3:1); our elder brother, as it were (Heb. 2:11-13); the one who received holy spirit without measure (John 3:34); perfected and immortal (2 Timothy 1:10, Revelation 1:18); given the position alongside Almighty God’s right hand (Matt 22:44, Ps. 110:1) as well as all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18) – designations and positions refuting any claim that he is Almighty God – it comes as no surprise that the Lord Messiah, the head of the church (Eph. 1:22, 23) is actively involved in the lives of his followers, necessitating communication via holy spirit which he received, but in no way requires him to be omniscient or Almighty by necessity. Jesus is clearly not omniscient (Matthew 24:36, Mark 11:12-14, Luke 2:52, John 11:34).
In his Upper Room Discourse, Jesus made his relation to God Almighty clear, even with regards to prayer, where he said,
Everything the Son is glorified in, even in prayerful requests, ultimately leads, not to his own exaltation and glorification, but to the glory of Almighty God, Our Father. The purposive clause in Jn 14.13 says, hina doxasthe ho pater en tw uiw. Ultimate glory to God, the Father, is its purpose. This is the biblical understanding of glory or doxology to the Son – namely, to ultimately glorifying God.
Trinitarians face the same dilemma Muslims are facing, when Muslims argue that the greatest prophet, Mohammed, was foretold in the OT and NT. Muslims’ scanty and inductive pieces of evidence pointing to Mohammed’s supposed coming dwindle in comparison to the overwhelming evidence pointing to Jesus as the Messiah. If Mohammed were to be greater than Jesus, why comparatively insignificant number of “evidence?†The same with prayer. The occasions where Christians are shown to have prayed to Jesus appear to be the exception, rather than the rule. It’s a fallacy to claim that that in itself proves that Jesus is Almighty God – something Mr Taylor still has to show by necessity – and secondly, what other option do Christians have if they desire to communicate with their Messiah?
Kardiognwstes is an ability that only God can have by definition – since he is the omniscient God. It brings us to this syllogism:
If the Father is God, he will have the ability of kardiognwstes.
The Father is God
Ergo, the Father has kardiognwstes (modus ponens)
Your argument, Mr Taylor, amounts to Affirming the Consequent.
If Jesus is God, he will have the ability of kardiognwstes
Jesus has the ability of kardiognwstes
Ergo, Jesus is God
Humans, including Jesus, were capable of reading people’s minds and hearts:
Acts 5:3, 4 “But Peter said: ‘Ananias, why has Satan embpldened you to play flase to the holy spirit and to hold back secretly some of the price of the field? Why was it that you purposed such a deed as this in your heart?’â€
Acts 7:51 “Obstinate men and uncircumcised in hearts and ears, you are always resisting the holy spirit; as you forefathers did, so you do.â€
Acts 8:20, 22 “But Peter said to [Simon the magician]: ‘May your silver perish with you, because you thought through money to get possession of the free gift of God. Repent, therefore, of this badness of yours, and supplicate the LORD that, if possible, the device of your heart may be forgiven you.’â€
Even in Daniel, the angels are involved in responding to our prayersâ€
Daniel 10:12-13 “Then he said to me, ‘Don’t be afraid, Daniel, for from the very first day you applied your mind to understand and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard. I have come in response to your words. However, the prince of the kingdom of Persia was opposing me for twenty-one days. But Michael, one of the leading princes, came to help me, because I was left there with the kings of Persia.’â€
Since knowledge of the heart (kardiognwstes) is an ability necessitating the possessor of that ability to be Almighty God, then, honestly and consistently reasoned, Mr Taylor, you’ll have to admit that the angel of Daniel, the apostle Peter and the disciple Stephen were all God. If not, why the inconsistency?
Are you serious? You are arguing in our favour here. Your unfounded presupposition, namely, that only God Almighty and no one else, including His Sh’liachim, may be prayed to, prevents you from accepting the text for what it says. It is in no way different from the implications of the text in Exodus 23:20-22, “‘I am going to send an angel before you to protect you as you journey and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. Take heed because of him, and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions, for my name is in him. But if you diligently obey him and do all that I command, then I will be an enemy to your enemies, and I will be an adversary to your adversaries.’â€
Someone other than Yahweh is prayed to, not because this someone was identical to Yahweh, but, true to its Hebraic setting, was representative of Yahweh.
You’re giving your level of expertise away here…Danny’s quoting the Sybilline Oracles show what the presupposition pool of those Christians were. If isolating the first-Century NT from its cultural background works for your theology, try not to expect us Unitarians to practise that bad science…
The issues raised above demand an explanation, Mr Taylor. Your hit-and-run tactics does your position no good…
In Christ,
Jaco
P.S. Mr Taylor, please provide evidence for your claim, namely, that Jesus had to be God to redeem us from sin. We need evidence from you proving that Jesus dying as a human is not good enough for redemption.
If, according to you, Jesus is God, and Jesus’ God is God, would it be wrong to say that Jesus is the Father’s God? Why (not)?
That doesn’t give any human free rein to impose upon God any flimsy figment of the mind and then justify it by stating that God is incomprehensible, does it? Something else you continue to repeat, albeit without reference, is the post-biblical invention of being/person dichotomy. Provide evidence for your anthropology, please. Where is the evidence that the ancient Jews distinguished between “Being†and “Person,†so as to justify your relatively post-biblical novelty of “Three Persons in One Being.†Your case is entirely based upon extra-biblical assumptions.
Jaco,
Way too long I am not reading it. If you disagree with my position concerning Christ and want to debate one on one then contact Sean and we can arrange things. Word limits are beautiful for those who insist on giving their 4 hour sermons.
…nothing stopped you from reading other posters’ long posts… Word limits are set for your and Danny’s articles, not comments. YOU AGREED TO THESE RULES. Contrary to your pick-one slip-one theology, you cannot have it both ways. At least other posters read my comments, and probably experience a theological dilemma if they’re trinitarian.
You have double standards. If you don’t suffer from temporary memory loss, you’ll recall that your quality of debating will be among the factors determining whether I’ll agree to debating you. Thus far, your parroting style and hit-and-run tactics indicate to me that debating you will be a waste of my time…
Maybe once you’ve matured… 🙂
Jaco
They weren’t as long as yours.
I know I agreed to the rules. I have no pronblem with that. People want to ramble on endlessly that is their choice.
I don’t really care if I debate you or not. Your position would be crushed anyway. You’ll just look for any excuse to copout out of it.
Later….
Sorry for the long post again!!! It always feels like when I explain one thing, something else needs to be explained. (Preemptive apology!) ^_^
That would be an interesting debate, as it seems most debates are centered on the divinity of Jesus. It’s quite a struggle it seems. Is he 100% divine, or 100% human? You can’t have it both ways, they say, or can you? Could it be the way we are looking at it? Perhaps it’s because many of us are not capable of seeing things as possibly being both. We tend to think in black and white terms. While it is true that some things are black and white, it is also true that some things are not. It always seems to end up that everyone is holding a piece of the truth. The divinity of Jesus is one of those non black/white issues. I’ve always sounded like a fool explaining it. “He is, but he isn’t, but he is.” Although I subscribe to the 100% divine and 100% human Jesus, I do not see him as “eternally begotten” or pre-existent. However, I am looking quite forward to reading your take on the person of the Holy Spirit sometime.
As far as panentheism goes, it differs from school to school. From what I understand the Jewish perspective of panentheism is that God is always eternal and infinite and with personality and consciousness. He remains omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, even if there were no creation. He is considered to be, by the sages, 100% pure unconditional love/bestowal, bringing creation into existence with the plan of it becoming a grand self-expression of Himself. Of course, it always was in his eyes, but to us finite folk it is a long arduous and baffling process.
To explain creation under this view, it is said that each creation is a vessel made to contain God. Trees, animals, all forms of life and matter contain a “spark” of some sort in order to exist at all. All though it is not God, it contains God in some form, in some measure. In this view the Earth is a living breathing organism in development, with different parts. This organism is an organ of a larger organism (Solar system), which is also a part of another organism. (Galaxy) and so on and so forth ad infinitum. Since we are built in His image, it is his plan that we be united/one as He is One.
Panentheism is different from pantheism, which states that the universe is God. If the universe were God and it were destroyed (God forbid) there would be no God. Panentheism is that all is in God, like the analogy with the ocean. Although God permeates creation, creation is not God. Creation can only be likened to God when it contains the same qualities, character, will and purpose as God; but even then, it receives everything it has, from God as it’s source. Remove the source, creation dies.
On the flip-side, soak up as much source as possible, and and creation has life and life increasing in abundance, infinitely.Thus when one actually gets to see the world to come, the perfect world in which God created to commune with us, it will be as spoken of in Isaiah 11:9-10
On a side, note, there are many Jews who hold this view that also view the theories of evolution as nothing more than the act of God’s creation in action, unfolding in slow motion. From the big bang onward to the development of life on this planet are said to have unfolded in the same order of phases/days as in the Genesis account; if these events were witnessed from the position of standing where the earth was, when it happened. Also, the idea of the world reaching a symbiotic relationship as prophesied in Isaiah would be possible if evolution were in play. If this process is simply God’s laws of nature in action, then the elimination of sin from the world would in time remove the need for predatory or self-preservation mechanisms from animals and plants. Terminal illness and natural disasters would end completely, as the planet would no longer need to treat humans as a disease or a threat. On that day, the word would finally become and be manifest as what it was set out to do and become from the beginning! May Christ return soon, in this lifetime!
P.S. Thanks for tolerating my very long posts Marc!
(Added…)
Marc,
Here’s something you might find interesting. This article is actually written by a trinitarian who holds panentheistic views. I find it interesting because it seems to, on a conceptual level, bridges a gap between unitarian and trinitarian viewpoints. The author goes on to discuss how it also has potential to bridge gaps between other religious views and Christianity, which I’m fond of, which allow for the gospel to be more easily heard by others.
http://frimmin.com/faith/godinall.php
^^^ Oops, maybe I spoke too soon… I’m not sure what the author of that article is. I assumed they were trinitarian because they wrote:
They might be, but I’m not sure… The author appears to be a comparative spirituality/religion… or even a new-age buff of some sort or another. But the article in itself is a good article.
Sorry to flood the comments!
Oh, Mr Taylor,
Did you really think that you could agree to a public debate, make up all kinds of nonsensical statements and expect all of us to simply except your extra-biblical inventions without responding to them? And then, when something substantial is provided, solidly exposing your horrendous claims for what they truly are, you refuse to reply to those. Instead, your cocky manners have you run around and challenge me for yet another debate, while you can’t even take care of the one on-hand??? At what stage of anybody’s progressive insanity does one tragically dare to take you seriously?
YOU were the one agreeing on the debate!
YOU agreed to the rules!
If you refuse to answer the questions, and you can’t take the heat, that’s YOUR problem!
YOU must have known that we wouldn’t simply swollow down your theological musings. Instead of giving your demonstrably immature leanings away by threatening and challenging us when we refute your inventions, be a man and stick to the rules you agreed to.
I needn’t explain myself on why I think you’re wasting my time. NOT sticking to agreed rules, evading questions – in the minds of the sane – amounts to cowering.
Jaco
P.S If you don’t like my long posts, think twice before posting what is unbiblical. If you don’t, expect a crushing from truth lovers…
I don’t care how long you post. Go ahead and enjoy it. I’m just saying I am not wasting my time sitting through 4 hour sermons. “Words are like leaves; and where they most abound, Much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found”.
It is you who hold to the unbiblical position that Christ is not prayed to. You want to believe that then go right ahead while the Bible teaches otherwise.
Mr Taylor,
If that’s the way you feel, then fine.
Jaco
P.S. If you do take the time reading through my “4 hour sermon,” you’ll find that I don’t have any issues praying to Jesus.
Re 74
“Triune” can be a tricky word. The Recovery Movement “developed by Witness Lee, on the basis of Isaiah 9:6 are Trinitarian although they use the word Triune a lot. But they also believe that Jesus is the Father.
Danny
Jaco,
Based on an earlier response you believe that Christ does not receive latreuw in Revelation 22:3, He does not receive proseuxomai in Acts 1:24 and in Acts 7:59 you don’t think it is prayerful worship.
In all three passages the evidence is stacked quite high against you.
David (msg. #72)
You said, “From the big bang onward to the development of life on this planet are said to have unfolded in the same order of phases/days as the Genesis account; if these events were witnessed from the position of standing where the earth was, when it happened.”
I agree completely. Genesis 1:2 says, “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.”
The story of creation is told from the viewpoint of the Spirit of God that was hovering over the face of the waters. The order that things would have appeared (to that Spirit) fits perfectly with our known understanding of how the planet evolved…
It seems to me that the doctrine of the Trinity is to many Christians as a golden calf (Ex 32:4) and that many a Trinitarian has decided that all Christians must bow to it.
Though I am not in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, nor have I decided that I will spend my life in it’s defence, nor promote the teaching of it, nor disciple men by it, I believe that Jesus was both with God and in God from all eternity, before the creation of the world, did communicate with God the Father, was at that time God’s Son, did create all things by God the Father, is the Word of God, did reign in Glory with God before he came to this earth, was in the world by the spirit of God, the spirit of wisdom, the holy spirit, found by at least a few men this way, later came into this world in the flesh by the holy spirit, being born of a virgin, taught the things of his kingdom, of heaven, of righteousness, of faith, of goodness, of virtue, of love, of kindness, of patience, of whatever it was that God sent him to teach and do, was crucified, was burried, was raised to life again by a bodily resurrection, did continue to be seen for a few dozens of days or so, and did ascend up where he was before.
I believe that a Christian can be a Christian without giving his life over to the doctrine of the Trinity as if it is the form he must adhere to, the style he must wear, or the model he must reproduce. If it is something he must do for acceptance by an institution on this earth, it seems to me that the kingdom of heaven has not yet come to that institution.
It is interesting to point out that in the Dead Sea Scrolls (I don’t remember which volume or fragment at this time, but it was one of the books of Enoch) the figure of the Son of Man, believed to be the same depicted in Isaiah, is described as eternally existent in heaven with the Father and also born before the world was ever created.
I see a part of the Trinitarian – Unitarian conflict is that neither position appears to accept that Jesus IS a Man! He stated that he was a “Son of Man” – which should tell us that he IS a Man.
I contend that Jesus has NOT existed, forever, for it was well into the Creation – on the Sixth Day of the Creation – that God began to “create” Man. Jesus was the very first one of us whose creation into the IMAGE and into the LIKENESS of God was completed. The rest of us are still being created. Jesus was God’s first born Son out of the WORD (PLAN) of God for the Creation.
Jesus was CREATED; he did not always exist. For God said, “Today, I have become your Father.” Must I quote the verses?
Why couldn’t Acts 13:33 refer to Christ’s resurrection?
Marc writes-Why couldn’t Acts 13:33 refer to Christ’s resurrection?
Response…Yes.
Jesus became God’s born son at his baptism. The phrase, “raising up” refers to the eventual birth of Jesus FROM through his descendants.
1 Chronicles 17:11-13 ( NIV )
When your days are over and you go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom.
He is the one who will build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever.
I will be his father, and he will be my son. I will never take my love away from him, as I took it away from your predecessor.
The point is, Jesus was CREATED — he BECAME God’s firstborn Son. He was not always God’s BORN Son.
As for the resurrection, Jesus raised himself up from the dead! It is common throughout the Scriptures, however, to attribute everything to God ——- because nothing is done without God’s approval. Technically, however, Jesus had the power to raise his dead body up from the grave.
John 2:18-22 ( KJV )
Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
But he spake of the temple of his body.
When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
Yes, I do also believe that the scriptures state quite plainly that Jesus was created. “Son of Man” can mean either “human” or “mortal”. I also believe Jesus always existed within the plan of God. I too second that Jesus did not become the “Son of God” until his baptism by John. Jesus was not “pre-existent” or “eternally existent” in relation to time as we know it. He is human, he is Jewish. He was born some 2000 years ago, and did not exist in any other way, shape or form, other than in the mind of God.
… silly me, did I really write “born before” in #82? That’s not what I meant at all!
RogCat/David
I agree with both of you that Yeshua/Jesus was created and was not pre-existent in some form or another, other than being planned from the very beginning…
David
I was just rereading your msg. #82, where you were talking about the Dead Sea scrolls saying that, “the figure of the Son of Man, believed to be the same as depicted in Isaiah, is described as eternally existent in heaven with the Father.”
Then in msg. #87, you said, “Jesus was not ‘pre-existent’ or ‘eternally existent’ in relation to time as we know it. He is human, he is Jewish. He was born some 2000 years ago, and did not exist in any other way, shape or form, other than in the mind of God.”
What you say in msg. #82, about Yeshua/Jesus being “eternally existent with the Father” doesn’t seem to fit with what you are saying in Msg. *87. I am just wondering if you made another typo in msg. #82 other than the one about being “born before.”
BTW – I hope you are having a great Sabbath…
Doubting Thomas,
FYI I am having a great Seventh-Day Sabbath according to God’s “Will.” I, for one, believe in keeping ALL of the Ten Commandments, for they represent the “WILL” of OUR Father. This is another subject, of course – – – but nice to know to further our fellowship.
The discussion on the Sabbath and the day Jesus died has been moved to the following more relevant thread:
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2010/04/12/what-day-did-jesus-die/#comment-74267
(Thanks, Robert. I tweaked the formatting a little to make it easier to read.)
DT,
Yes I made a typo in Message #82 where I said that Jesus was “born before.” It is important to note that the Son of Man figure in Isaiah thought by some Jewish scholars to also refer to the nation of Israel or even mankind.
I do not believe Jesus did not exist (pre-human) other than in the plan or mind of God. He is a created being who is temporal. It’s a confusing subject in any way since with God there is no space or time.
In which case one could say that all things pre-existed, technically speaking. What necessarily defines a “thought” in the “mind” of God? A memory? An echo? A parallel or alternate reality? If one were to travel back in time, would the people of the present time cease to exist? Or would a different “branch” of life take place? This topic can get out of control rather quickly as it’s confusing. In this case, it is truly possible. But for the sake of simplicity, I’m sure we are speaking of the timeline of which we can observe and comprehend.
I think the issue when dealing with the “pre-exiscnce” of Jesus is a tricky one. I’m in the air with it. I think he could have existed, but it’s beyond human comprehension and moving into the realm of metaphysics. It’s a harmless issue alone with the answer almost a bit ambiguous, but its an issue that Trinitarians have been using to reinforce their “co-equal/co-eternal” docrine. Common sense and biblical passages show that Jesus came into play at a specific point in time. 🙂