951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

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


5 Answers for Danny (5b)

  

This is the tenth post in a moderated debate between Biblical Unitarian Danny Dixon and Trinitarian Marc Taylor. A complete list of posts can be accessed here.

1. 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).
The Lord Jesus was, is and will always be omnipotent. He chose not to always use His “full power” (omnipotence) during His earthly life. Refusal to employ ability does not necessitate inability.


2. TDNT: God is the Father of all but this does not mean that all men are His sons. There are hints of this only in Lk. 3:38; Ac. 17:28, and both these passages have the creation in view, not a mythical or mystical begetting or the presence of a divine spark in man (8:389-390, hios – Schweizer).
Adam was the son of God because he “was not born of human parents but was still a full man and not a demi-god” (TDNT 8:382, ibid.,).
Adam is the son of God by creation (cf. Genesis 2).


3. I previously wrote that scholars versus scholars is part of my point in John 1:1 and concerning ‘only-begotten.’ As one asserting this assertion is nowhere near airtight at all. I don’t mean that all assertions have to be airtight but your citations concerning John 1:1 and “only-begotten” are nowhere near it. In fact, a vast majority are actually against what you are asserting. To employ passages and the arguments that go along with them and insist that one is correct when such a large majority of scholars disagree is unwise.


4. The resurrected glorified again Jesus has a God because he is still a man and he will always be a man (1 Timothy 2:5; cf. Colossians 2:9). This in no way detracts from His Deity.

a. Mounce: Jesus is called anthrwpos to designate his humanity apart from his divinity, as in 1 Tim. 2:5, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Not only does this refer to Jesus Christ as a specific man, but it also places emphasis on his humanity (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Man, page 438).

b. TDNT: Christ is obviously not called man to rule out His deity, or in opposition to Docetic inclinations, or as ideal man or member of the one party, but to show that He belongs to all men without distinction (4:619; footnote #81, mesites – Oepke).

c. Vine: one who mediates between two parties with a view to producing peace, as in 1 Tim. 2:5, though more than mere mediatorship is in view, for the salvation of men necessitated that the Mediator should Himself possess the nature and attributes of Him towards whom He acts, and should likewise participate in the nature of those for whom He acts (sin apart); only by being possessed both of Deity and humanity could He comprehend the claims of the one and the needs of the other; further, the claims and the needs could be met only by One who, Himself being proved sinless, would offer Himself an expiatory sacrifice on behalf of men (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Mediator, pages 726-727).

d. As J.L. Williams so aptly wrote, “For Christ to be a bridge between man and God, He must, like a physical bridge, be firmly established on both shores. Otherwise the chasm that separated man from God would not be bridged. We would have no mediator. And we would still be lost in our sins.” (Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, John Ankerberg and John Weldon; Harvest House Publishers, c. 1999, page 602, footnote #2, citing ‘Victor Paul Wierwille and The Way International’ by J.L. Williams, page 59).


5. The first use of “God” in John 1:1 refers to the Father while the second time “God” appears it refers to the Lord Jesus.

a. Louw and Nida: In Jn. 1.1, ‘the Word was God,’ the meaning of theos may be described on the basis that all the componential features of theos are applied to the referent logos, which is in turn identified with ‘Christ.’ This is not to be interpreted as indicating that the two referents are identical (which was, of course, the position of those who maintained the so-called patropassian heresy), but that the distinctive features of theos are also fully applicable to another referent, namely, the logos or Christ; that is to say, it is legitimate to interpret Jn. 1.1 as ‘the Word was God’ but not as ‘God was the Word’ (Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 12.1, theos, page 137).

b. On page 278 of “Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation” Moises Silva wrote: proponents of some cults are fond of pointing out that the last reference to God in John 1:1 does not include the definite article and so should be translated “a god” or “divine.” Someone with little or no knowledge of Greek could easily be persuaded by this argument. A reasonably good understanding of predicate clauses in Greek, however, is all one needs to demonstrate that the argument has no foundation whatever (the article that accompanies the predicate noun is routinely dropped to distinguish the predicate from the subject of the clause – besides, there are numerous and indisputable references to God, as in verses 6, 13, and 18 of the same chapter, that do not include the article).
Earlier on page 215 Silva wrote:

Just as God was personally present in the creation of the world, so did he become personally present in the accomplishment of redemption. It was not simply a poetic strain that led the apostle John to begin his gospel by describing Jesus as the Word. That Word was there at the beginning of creation with God – indeed, that Word was God himself, and all things were created by him (John 1:1-3; cf. also Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2-3).

c. TDNT: The lack of article, which is grammatically necessary in 1:1, is striking here, and reminds us of Philonic usage. The Logos who became flesh and revealed the invisible God was a divine being, God by nature. The man born blind has some sense of this when, after his healing, he falls down in believing adoration before Christ, who addresses him with the divine “I” (Jn. 9:38f.). The final veil is removed, however, when the Risen Lord discloses Himself to Thomas, and the astonished disciple exclaims: ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou (Jn. 20:28). In Jn. 1:1 we have Christology: He is God in Himself. Here we have the revelation of Christ: He is God for believers (3:105-106, theos – Stauffer)

d. TDNT: Theos is not restricted to the God and Father of Jesus Christ. It is also used occasionally of Jesus Himself (3:92, theos; footnote #140 reads, “Jn. 1:1; 20:28 etc.” – Kuhm).

e. TDNT: Only He who is beyond all human comparison and has always been most intimate with the Father can declare the Father, 1:1, 18. The ho wn eis ton kolpon tou patros does not refer to a single stage but to what has always been and always is (5:998, pater – Schrenk).

131 Responses to “5 Answers for Danny (5b)”

  1. on 18 Sep 2010 at 10:32 amrobert

    Mark
    How do you deal with this, this leaves out God the Son as Good or equal.
    Seems the early church fathers didnt have the corrupted text of the trinitarian church

    Matthew 19.17 /Mark 10.18/Luke 18.19

    One very early Church Father is Justin. In his Dialogue 101.2 (probably from the 140s or 150s) , we read “One is good, my Father in the heavens.” This very early quotation is not what we read in the Bible today.
    Perhaps he was just working from memory, or did he have a manuscript which differed from today’s Bibles?
    EPHREM: Commentary on the Diatessaron, XV.9, in both the original Syriac and the Armenian (2 manuscripts) reads: “One is good, the/my Father who [is] in the heaven.”
    Ephrem died in 373, and the Syriac manuscript of the Commentary is fifth century. And Tatian, of course, composed the Diatessaron (the gospel harmony upon which Ephrem was commenting) about 172, on the basis of the gospel texts current then. And this citation agrees precisely with Justin’s, allowing for the differences in Syriac and Greek. We now have two independent sources which show that the 2nd-century manuscripts of this Gospel verse differ from what is read today.
    IRENAEUS: Haer. V.7.25 (pre-185): “One is good, the/my Father in the heavens.”
    Another second-century source confirming the ‘wrong’ version of Matthew 19:17.
    HIPPOLYTUS: Haer. V.7.25 (pre-222): “One is good, the/my Father in the heavens.”
    Another early Christian Father has the ‘wrong’ version.
    CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: Strom. V.10.63 (composed c. 207):”One is good, the/my Father.”
    At least Clement drops the ‘in the heaven’ phrase.
    PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE HOMILIES: XVI.3.4 about 260 AD. “For one is good, the/my Father in the heavens.”
    Another early Church Father disagrees with the ‘correct’ version of the Bible.
    VETUS LATINA MS e (apud Matthew, 5th cent.): “Unus est bonus, pater.”
    This is the second most ancient manuscript and it also has ‘Father’
    VETUS LATINA MS d (apud Luke, 5th century.): “Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus pater.”
    ‘Father’ again.
    I wonder why this verse was changed. Bibles of today read that no one is good except God alone. This is fine for Christians who believe that Jesus is God. But if the manuscripts read that no one is good except the Father, then there would be trouble for Trinitarians, who believe Jesus is God, but not God the Father. So it was changed.

  2. on 18 Sep 2010 at 10:33 amrobert

    Sorry i meant Marc

  3. on 18 Sep 2010 at 6:13 pmMarc Taylor

    Robert,
    I never studied the manuscript evidence for this passage.

  4. on 18 Sep 2010 at 6:45 pmrobert

    Marc
    Maybe you should do some research on one of the earliest set of MSS which have their reading quoted by church fathers of the the first centuries after christianity started.
    The codex bezae matches most of their quotes, where the readings which you use were unknown to them.
    Kinda hard to claim equality of the trinity if Jesus claims it doesnt exist.
    I thought your having this debate you atleast read everything pertaining to the bible.
    I myself read everything i can that pertains to christianity

  5. on 18 Sep 2010 at 7:01 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    That is a very interesting point that you make in msg. #1 above…

  6. on 18 Sep 2010 at 8:26 pmMarc Taylor

    When such an overwhelming amount of manuscripts don’t contain it and no English Bible version has it that I know of it is unwise to make an assertion and insist that it is fact.
    Read “everything” pertainin to the Bible? Please tell me anybody wo has read everything pertaining to the Bible.

  7. on 18 Sep 2010 at 8:48 pmrobert

    Marc
    There are billions of the KJV versions but that doesnt make it authoritive because they are just copies of copies.So your claim that there are many more MSS that support your view is flawed by the point that they are just copies of copies. What makes the codex bezae more creditable is the fact that it is quoted from long before any of the MSS ever existed.
    So since the catholic church was in power during most of MSS being copied they had the choice of what got copied.
    If the opposing factors would of had power we might find 5000 copies of the Codex Bezae.
    Early witnesses not the amount of copies is what true truth seeker would require.
    Dont you agree?

  8. on 19 Sep 2010 at 3:16 amMarc Taylor

    Robert,
    Please list the English Bibles that have it or that at least have it as a footnote. A few (rather an extremely few) manuscripts is suspect.
    Furthermore, even if Jesus did say that the Father alone is good then that means Christ is deficient of this goodness. Please list the way/ways in which Christ is lacking in absolute goodness.

  9. on 19 Sep 2010 at 11:28 amrobert

    Marc
    Just how is providing english versions going to help when none of them existed when the early church fathers quoted this verse some 1800 years ago.
    What evidence i gave you was more ancient then the MSS that our english bibles are translated from and shows that they didnt even know about the reading with God instead of Father.
    But you answered my question on how you would deal with it and it fits how most trinitarians would deal with it and as usual it doesnt make any sense

  10. on 19 Sep 2010 at 4:21 pmDanny Dixon

    Regarding Answer to Question 1

    My first questions was: Please explain how Jesus was still the Almighty before the Father gave him “all authority” and “all power” that made him omnipotent?

    Marc’s position, unwittingly revealed in his response to this question, has left the impression that Jesus could become “Almighty” after a time when he was not God. Note the definitions he leaves for us: “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.” This comment clearly implies that there was a time when Jesus did NOT have all power; a time that he was therefore NOT omnipotent; and was therefore NOT Almighty (since he capitalizes it, I take it to mean “The Almighty”).

    This was to be expected since Marc has had difficulty in understanding the meaning of the word “to give” anyway, as was clearly seen in the beginning of the debate when he was not able to adequately explain Jesus’ explanation that the Father “gave to the Son also to have life in himself” (See John 5:26), and Marc’s comment in presentation. The same problem that Marc has in believing that there could be such a thing as an eternal begetting. Note Marc’s admission in his Rebuttal 1b, where he gave reference to an online commentary in which Barnes tries to explain the phrase “hath life” of John 5:26. Marc relied on it as an adequate response to my question about the origin of Jesus’ life from the source the Father who was the agent of his (Jesus’) begettal. It is certainly true that the context of John 5:22-26 mentions several things:

    1. God’s gift of mediating judgment to the Son (v. 22).

    2. The will of the Father that since he was honored his Son also should be honored (v.23).

    3. The status of having eternal life for those who believe in Jesus who was sent by the Father (v. 24).

    4. The explanation that a time will come when the dead will hear the Son’s voice and live to be judged (vss. 25, 27).

    5. The declaration that the Father, as the self-existent origin of life, is thus the cause of the Son having life in himself being one who “gave to the Son to have life in himself” (v. 26).

    Yet Barnes, and so Marc, dodge the clear indications of the passage that there was a time when the Son did not have life and then came to have it as a result of the Father’s gift. Barnes did so, and Marc joined suit by ignoring the fact that the partial phrase “hath life” of verse 26 has nothing to do with the aspects of Jesus’ mediation brought out in verse 22.

    Marc admitted that he believed in the Trinitarian doctrine of the “eternal begettal” of the Son (in comment 5 after 3a: “Yes I believe in the eternal begotteness of the Son of God” even though begettal is a one-time act requiring the Trinitarian to redefine common language and make ideas and concepts mean something that they do not in regular conversation. He must do so with the word “to give” as well as is clearly implied in his answer to question 1 when, after essentially saying that, the status of being Almighty was something that was “given” to Jesus.

    My question merely asked him to explain what Jesus was before he was given that status. Marc’s answer begins after the focus of my question when he talks about Jesus laying aside his prerogatives of divinity that he had before coming to the earth. I’ve already granted Jesus’ pre-human existence and kenotic humbling to come to the earth as a man.

    The point of my question clearly has to do with how Jesus ever came to be Almighty in the first place, especially since Marc said that God Jesus that status. Marc is a moving target. He has to contradict himself when he affirms that Jesus “laid aside His power and appeared in lowliness and humility” (what I happen to believe), while he really believes, in contradiction, that he was always able to exercise his omnipotence. Note that he says, “The Lord Jesus was, is and will always be omnipotent. He chose not to always use His ‘full power’ (omnipotence) during His earthly life. Refusal to employ ability does not necessitate inability” (Marc’s Answers 5b).

    Is it, then, the prerogative or choice of the God-man Jesus not to exercise his power or did he really lay it aside and come to the earth, not as a God-man, but as a man entirely? He does return to the language stressing Christ’s decision not to exercise his privileges of inherent omnipotence. He says, in answer to a question: “You assume the power wasn‘t inherently Christ‘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’” (Comment 19 after Constructive 4a).

    Even so, Marc shifts horses embracing the opinion of that Jesus did NOT have his prerogatives of divinity on the earth, but that they were, on the other hand anticipated. He quotes Reicke in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament who says, “Thus, when the full power of Jesus is occasionally mentioned during the time of His humiliation, it is merely a proleptic fact,” and that it is only after Jesus is crucified and raised that “a new situation” really occurs and Jesus for the first time since leaving heaven becomes the Almighty (Answers 5b).

    It is difficult, then, to see if Marc even answered the question. Is he saying that that Jesus was a center of consciousness in a man, and as only a man, was a separate person from the Father who gave him all authority right before the ascension (Matthew 28:18)? Or does Jesus finally grab hold, seize back his authority after the crucifixion and resurrection since he only had an anticipatory, a proleptic, hope while on the earth?

  11. on 19 Sep 2010 at 5:21 pmDanny Dixon

    Regarding Answer to Question #2

    My second question for Marc was, In Luke 3:38, Luke says that Adam is “the son of God.” How is this to be explained?

    When Marc speaks of Adam being a special son of God “by Creation,” he opens the door to an understanding of biblical language that is very revealing. Marc tells us that he believes in “the eternal begotteness of the Son of God” (3a Comment 5). In so doing he demonstrates how necessary it is to depart from normal language in the Scriptures written to human beings in order to create doctrines that are beyond normal understanding.

    That there are secret things about God that one cannot understand does not preclude the fact that there are things about him that are in fact revealed (Deuteronomy 29:29). Adam becomes a son of God because he comes into existence through the agency of God in a creative act. Jesus is eternally begotten, we are told, when a simpler explanation of the information in evidence would suffice.

    There is no mystery in saying that God begat Jesus—that the fact occurred. The human side of it is simple enough, Gabriel explains that Jesus’ arrival as a human being is precisely because the Holy Spirit causes Mary to become impregnated (Luke 1:35). Jesus explains his begettal, his beginning of life, his becoming a Son, as God’s action (John 5:26).

  12. on 19 Sep 2010 at 6:26 pmDanny Dixon

    Regarding Answer to Question #3

    I asked, Please explain your process of determining how one is to decide that one supporting scholar’s position should be considered more airtight than another.

    While reading Marc’s answer to question #3 I could not help but become reflective. Bottom line, Marc has told us simply that with regard to these serious matters with which we are dealing, “might makes right.” If the majority of scholars say a thing is true, then it simply is true. This is to say nothing regarding the numerous times that I and several on this forum have noticed that Marc pits scholars even against themselves.

    It is almost as if he has determined the doctrine to be true, then goes to find language in some scholarly work that backs his dispositions. It’s been demonstrated from time to time that the works themselves often have contradictory conclusions as scholars who are contributors to the articles therein differ among themselves. And sometimes the same contributor will admit, even regarding Trinitarian prerogatives, that differing opinions—some aspects of which support a more Unitarian point of view—ought to be considered as probable as this or that Trinitarian idea.

    I had hoped that we would have been able to see if Mark had an objective set of standards by which we could see that when I cite scholars from the same sources that he does, and when I cite scholars who are the same ones that he cites, and when some of my cites are not Trinitarian—I had hoped that he could help us to measure which is to be preferred. And now, all he has given us is essentially to say that if the majority of scholars have it one way, that is the way the thing should be understood.

    And yet I cannot help but think of what Jesus said about the propensity of people to just go with the large crowed. What does he say? “Enter in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby. For narrow is the gate and small is the road, that leads to life and few are they that find it” (Matthew 7:13-14).

    I wouldn’t, on the other hand, want to leave the impression that just because a perspective is small that following such a path is correct. Examples can be found where the stubborn few perished because they chose to remain in dwellings built aside a Mt. St. Helens ready to explode or in beachhouses doomed to be blown away by an approaching Florida hurricane. One would almost get the impression that Trinitarian doctrine was the clear perspective throughout church history; that everyone agreed upon it; and that only the idiot naysayers held to any other perspective. Such is not the case. Even a glancing san through Richard E. Rubenstein’s historical tome When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome reveals that prior to the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. opinions all across the Roman Empire varied. It took 150 years to come up with nicely turned phrases to describe the Trinitarian doctrine the scholars felt would represent the latter perspectives embraced. Consider these facts about the twists and turns of opinion the doctrine of the Trinity had to embark, before being embraced by the Christian Majority today:

    328—Constantine recalled Arius from exile in Illyria.

    335—Constantine sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier.

    336—The eastern bishops met at Constantinople with the emperor present in a fourth council since Arius returned from exile to declare his theology orthodox.

    337—The new Emperor Constantius orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria where he had been bishop.

    339—Athanasius flees Alexandria having learned his is about to be expelled as a heretic.

    341—In two councils held in Antioch at that time, the First, Second and Third Arian Confessions are written attempting to create a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed.

    343—At the Council of Sardica, eastern bishops demand the removal of Athanasius

    346—Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.

    351—A council is held at Aries during autumn that is directed against Athanasius.

    355—A council is held in Milan which again condemns Athanasius.

    356—Athanasius is deposed on February 8 and begins his third exile.

    357—The Third Council of Sirmium is convened where it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate son.

    359—The council of Seleucia affirms that Christ is like the father without specifying how the Son is like the Father.

    361—A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius’ position.

    380—Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the Empire.

    381—The First Council of Constantinople reviews the controversy since Nicea, re-evaluates and accepts the Nicene Creed adding clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters.

    Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire records the confused, but honest, statement by Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, who wrote:

    Every year, nay, every moon we make new creeds to describe invisible mysteries. We repent of what we have done, we defend those who repent, we anathematize those whom we defended. We condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves, or our own in that of others; and reciprocally tearing one another to pieces, we have been the cause of each other’s ruin (cited in G.S. Deuble, They Never Told me This in Church (2006) Atlanta, GA: Restoration Fellowship, pp. 31-33.

  13. on 19 Sep 2010 at 7:07 pmMarc Taylor

    Robert,
    Yeah it doesn’t make any sense because you just don’t ewnat to answer the question.

  14. on 19 Sep 2010 at 7:20 pmrobert

    Marc
    thats not what makes no sense.the way you deal with my question is what doesnt make any sense but knew it would be somewhat of that type of answer
    There is no answer to that question is why it was not answered.
    Thats like asking if a fish gets cold when its flying in the clouds

  15. on 19 Sep 2010 at 7:34 pmMarc Taylor

    Robert,
    Your response doesn’t make sense. Since you are clinging to the notion that only the Father is good that necessitates the Lord Jesus comes short of that goodness in some way/s. You asserted it so explain how.

  16. on 19 Sep 2010 at 7:39 pmMarc Taylor

    Danny,
    You regurgitate the same argumenst tha have already been dealt with by me. Refusal to employ ability does not necessitate lack of ability.
    Also you are the one asserting but when a vast majority don’t see it your way the minority still wins. In fact, when they are all against you you throw out the notion that words can’t be fully defined by citing Moises. Not only do you somehow accept his words and thus how he defines them but he even refutes you concerning John 1:1 and how latreuw is used in the New Testament.

  17. on 19 Sep 2010 at 8:55 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc
    You said, “Since you are clinging to the notion that only the Father is good that necessitates the Lord Jesus comes short of that goodness is some way/s. You asserted it so explain how.”

    I think Yeshua/Jesus is saying that any goodness that he does have comes from (originates from) the Father. Just like any goodness that we have comes form (originates from) OUR Father in heaven. ALL that is good comes from or originates from the Father/OUR Father.

    At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…

  18. on 19 Sep 2010 at 9:06 pmMarc Taylor

    DT,
    But people and creatures are not absolutely good. Christ is equally so as the Father.
    1. Mounce: Christ is called holy in the same sense of God (Rev. 3:7; cf. 1 Jn. 2:20) (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Holy, page 338).
    2. TDNT: Similarly in Revelation Christ as ho hagios kai ho alethinos (3:7) bears the same predicates as God Himself (6:10). Thus in all the passages adduced hagiosnis used to describe the deity of Christ (1:102, hagios – Procksch).

  19. on 19 Sep 2010 at 9:18 pmDanny Dixon

    Re 16

    Marc,

    I just don’t think you’ve dealt with the arguments very well. You seem to have a presupposition that it is absolutely impossible to see things from a non-Trinitarian point of view and then hunt for scholars who specifically say words that would agree with you. You quote Thayer a lot, for instance, and he doesn’t agree with you on Jesus being first cause.

    I think my major observation is that you repeat what scholars say without caring much about how they came to their conclusions.

    Moise Silva talks about responsible use of a lexicon. His point in chapter six is that one doesn’t define a word simply by looking at the theological commentary that is present along with the definitions which are usually in italics.

    Silva doesn’t refute me; he cites Jobe who has a different opinion than I do. That is not the same thing as a refutation. I am trying to get you to see that when people familiar with their own language use it in ways we are not used to, it is best that we try to understand WHY they would use language in that way. It does no good to just cite a quote and say it is good enough as a conclusion.

    Karen Jobes wrote the Appendix in the second edition of Moises Silva’s book, Biblical Words and their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics entitled, “Distinguishing the Meaning of Greek Verbs in the Semantic Domain for Worship” (pp. 201-211). It would have been helpful if, in the excellent article that she wrote outlining what it meant to worship God (in the sense of latreuo), she had discussed the concept of shaliach)—an “intermediary.” Then there would have been some balance as to how you understand what she was saying. Greg Stafford explains this, perhaps, a little better than I did in my first discussion of the article by D. Steenburg (“The Worship of Adam and Christ as the Image of God” in my Rebuttal 2b). Referencing Jobes’ discussion about latreuo)and summarizing thoughts in Steenburg’s article he writes:

    It is, however, possible to use latreuo) for someone other than God but only in furtherance of the worship of the “one God” . . . [He cites the section from a Christian portion of em>The Sibylline Oracles which uses the word em>morphe and continues explaining how ] we read that all things in the world “serve” (form of em>latreuo) Adam because he is made in the em>morphe of God . . . This use of em>morphe may have to do with an image Adam was given that permitted “worship” of him similar to how the Son of God is the “image” and “imprint” of God (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3), and how as such he can be worshipped in “fulfillment of God’s victory over idolatry . . . It is also clear that this “worship” is in both cases “at God’s bidding” as with Hebrews 1:6 (quotations refer to the Steenburg article, pp. 97, 100, 101) (Greg Stafford, “Jah’s ‘Firstborn.’” Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, Third Edition. [Murrieta, California: Elihu Books, 2009], p. 367, footnote 7.

    Notice, Marc, that there is not just a scholar cited, but an argument is made. This is not something that you do typically. Here is the argument laid out:

    1. Latreuo is used in “Christian” literature, namely The Sibylline Oracles, to indicate worship to God or to one whom God has specifically designated as being worthy of worship.

    2. Additionally, latreuo is properly used of man if the further promotion of worship of God is at issue as opposed to idolatry.

    3. Such usage is made of Adam in a literary context.

    4. Such usage is made of Christ in a biblical context (Revelation 22:13).

    K.H. Jobes, in her article in Moises Silva’s book doesn’t even address this aspect of agency. Neither do you. Rather the concept is rejected outright simply by providing, in a bullying manner, a quote by a scholar with a Trinitarian bias who makes no argument: “The incarnation of the Word thus does not mean Jesus as the eschatological ambassador, in whom God is present and acting; it signifies the presence of God himself in the flesh” (B. Klappart, New New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, “Word” Vol 3:1117. See your reference to it in 2nd Rebuttal 3b).

    Silva quotes J. H. Barr in The Semantics of Biblical Language (p. 222) regarding the use of the word ho logos, pointing out that the definite article there specializes the use of the word in that context. The quote, which I will give in full, and which I am guessing you might be referring to, does not make an argument:

    The use of ho logos with the article in the very special case of John 1 is really a special meaning which cannot be mingled indiscriminately with other cases simply because they also contain the word logos. In other words a simple syntactic relation like the adding of the definite article and the absence of other qualification can establish a different semantic field just as well as the transition to another word can.

    One thing I do want to note is that Barr has pointed out the significance of John 1 as a specialized passage, and that the use of definite articles with words and other relations make it a very important passage with possible specialized vocabulary. Barr doesn’t say anything that impacts our debate, but we do get a signal flag in the quotation that should give us pause before making simple conclusions. It is important to examine the context carefully.

    It will not be responsible to just dismiss this passage (John 1:1ff) casually. Other than this particular quotation, I didn’t find any other reference to John 1 in the index which impacts our discussion. So your statement that Silva disagrees with me seems to be incorrect. I grant that you may have in mind a passage in his book that I didn’t see in my perusal of the text, and I will respond if you will make more than a general statement that he disagrees with me.

    At any rate, how do you deal with the reasoned argument regarding latreuo made by Steenburg and Stafford?

  20. on 19 Sep 2010 at 9:45 pmMarc Taylor

    Danny,
    You reject what either most or all of the scholar say so it really isn’t difficlut at all to go “hunting” for them. Thayer is a mixed bag so your appealing to him as it relates to “first cause” doesn’t help your cause. He defines theotes as, “the state of being God” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, theotees, page 288).
    And under “theos” on page 287, he writes, “the matter is still in dispute among theologians” as to whether or not Christ is called God in John 20:28 but then he informs us that “after his resurrection Jesus is addressed by the title ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou, Jn. xx. 28” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, kurios, page 366). The noted linguist Professor Grimm wrote concerning proseuxee that it “is a word of sacred character, being limited to prayer to God” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, deesis, page 126) and yet you apply it to the Lord Jesus.

    The very same book that you appeal to by Silva does refute you in regards to the use of latreuw. By the way he never made an editor’s comment (like Brown does in the NIDNTT) to either clarify or disagree with what is written in his book.

    There are times when an argument does not need to be made because the meaning of the word is just self-explanatory. For example, when the Thayer says that the Lord of lords refers to the Supreme Lord and supreme is defined as in “highest” does one really need to define “highest”?

    Latruew: Do you know that an is does not necessitate an ought?

    In terms of agency on the very same page of the NIDNTT that you quoted refers to David but avid was not physically there. Jacob already entered into the presence of God. That is not agency at all. An agent is a substitute. No substitute is needed in God’s presence. It doesn’t make sense to be appealing to god then suddenly stop and direct your request to a limited created being.

  21. on 19 Sep 2010 at 9:58 pmMarc Taylor

    In regards to Stafford he teaches that latruew can be rendered to someone else other than God only in furtherance of the worship of the one God. This can be done because Adam was made in God’s image?
    Since every person is made in God’s image are they worthy of latreuw? Why couldn’t a person “claim” that it is helping them in the furtherance of the worship of the one God?

  22. on 19 Sep 2010 at 10:05 pmrobert

    “I think Yeshua/Jesus is saying that any goodness that he does have comes from (originates from) the Father. Just like any goodness that we have comes form (originates from) OUR Father in heaven. ALL that is good comes from or originates from the Father/OUR Father.”

    Thomas
    Very good answer, thanks
    I wasnt going to bother because Marc wasnt going to accept even the most common sensual answer like yours

  23. on 19 Sep 2010 at 11:30 pmMarc Taylor

    Robert,
    DT wrote “Just like any goodness we have comes from the Father”….but we are not holy in the same sense as God. Robert must have skipped over that part in all of his reading.

  24. on 19 Sep 2010 at 11:37 pmrobert

    “DT wrote “Just like any goodness we have comes from the Father”….but we are not holy in the same sense as God. Robert must have skipped over that part in all of his reading.”

    Marc
    Nor is anything or anyone holy in the same sense as God Yahweh, that you must of skipped over in all your reading.

  25. on 19 Sep 2010 at 11:46 pmMarc Taylor

    See the citations in my response (#18). Hopefully this time you won’t skip over it.

  26. on 19 Sep 2010 at 11:51 pmDanny Dixon

    Marc:

    I see that your reference to Silva is from another book, NOT Biblical Words and Their Meaning, which I do not have, but will try to get post haste before I comment on it.

    I think that I may, likely, not be able to afford this $65 book before the debate is officially over. It is something that I see I should have in my library. However, I do think I will be able to comment on what Silva has said as you have reported it.

    And I’ll get to that as soon as I can. Gotta get some school work done.

    Danny

  27. on 19 Sep 2010 at 11:53 pmrobert

    Marc
    You have 4 Gods
    the last being commentaries
    sorry but I dont follow opinions not based on facts

  28. on 20 Sep 2010 at 12:09 amMarc Taylor

    Robert,
    You follow what you think the words mean thus you created another god for yourself….you.

  29. on 20 Sep 2010 at 12:10 amMarc Taylor

    OK Danny thank you. I was able to access it at a library here.

  30. on 20 Sep 2010 at 12:13 amrobert

    Marc if you wanted to be honest you would include the same word in greek means SAINT but that isnt how holy is used for GOD.
    YES JESUS WAS A SAINT
    Other refernce is about Gods spirit not Jesus

    Pronunciation: hag’-ee-os
    Origin: from hagos (an awful thing) [cf 53, 2282]
    Reference: TDNT – 1:88,14
    PrtSpch: adj
    In Greek: agia 8, agiai 1, agiaiv 3, agian 6, agiav 3, agie 1, agioi 8, agioiv 19, agion 43, agiou 42, agiouv 12, agiov 13, agiw 26, agiwn 35, agiwtath 1, [agiou] 1
    In NET: Holy 91, saints 58, holy 49, a holy 7, Holy One 5, Holy Spirit 1, all 1, a Holy 1, holiness 1, set apart 1, to saints 1, most holy 1, holy ones 1, with Holy 1, believers 1
    In AV: holy 161, saints 61, Holy One 4, misc 3

  31. on 20 Sep 2010 at 12:41 amMarc Taylor

    The lexicons make a difference.

  32. on 20 Sep 2010 at 7:53 amrobert

    “The lexicons make a difference.”

    Marc
    Yes i have seen how much difference they make when you jump from one to the other when one doesnt support your view.

  33. on 20 Sep 2010 at 6:05 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc (msg. #18)
    You said, “DT, But people and creatures are not absolutely good. Christ is equally so as the Father.”

    The scriptural definition of the word ‘good’ is to do the will of God (Father/Creator). This is where our different beliefs come into play. I believe Yeshua/Jesus was a person (one of the people) and could have sinned like anyone else, but he didn’t. You believe that he was the 2nd. person in the Trinity and was the same being as God (the Father/Creator), and therefore it would have been impossible for him to have went against God’s will.

    If this were true it would make the whole story of the temptation in the desert a hoax perpetrated as part of some elaborate charade in order to fool Christians into believing that Yeshua/Jesus was actually tempted by Satan. If Yeshua/Jesus was the 2nd. person in the Trinity and personally created the universe and everything in it, then it logically follows he would have created Satan and the angels as well.

    How could Satan have tempted his own Creator???

    According to what you have said, you believe Yeshua/Jesus had all the powers of Almighty God during his time on earth but chose not to use them. If this were true, how could Satan have tempted Yeshua/Jesus in Mathew 4:5-6; with throwing himself off the temple. Certainly if he had all the powers of the Almighty he could have chose to save himself, without having to rely on God (the Father) to send his angels to bear him up lest he strike his foot against a stone.

    And then in Mathew 4:8-9 where it says, “Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and there glory. And he said to him, ‘All these I will give you, if you fall down and worship me.’…”

    If Yeshua/Jesus was inherently Almighty (or God), how could he be tempted with the glory of primitive worldly kingdoms, or any kingdoms for that matter???

    I think it is obvious that Christ was completely human and (like everyone) had to rely on Almighty God for any goodness that he may of had. Doing good is doing the will of God. Therefore without God (the Father/Creator) we would have no biblical definition of what is good and what wasn’t.

    At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…

  34. on 20 Sep 2010 at 6:50 pmMarc Taylor

    DT,
    Satan could have tempted his own Creator for Christ became a man. Furthermore, Satan is delusioned by his power that he has now which wouldn’t prevent him from challenging Christ.
    As with many people who deny Christ’s deity you select Bible passages that show He is a man but disregard those that prove He is God.
    Psalm 119:160 says the sum of God’s word is truth. Not certain parts of it but all of it.

  35. on 20 Sep 2010 at 7:01 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc,
    From what I can see, there are no passages that ‘prove’ He is God. Just unspecific vague passages from which you and others infer/imply that Yeshua/Jesus is God…

  36. on 20 Sep 2010 at 7:25 pmMarc Taylor

    DT,
    Then the problem is with your seeing and not what the passages teach.

  37. on 20 Sep 2010 at 8:29 pmRay

    It seems to me that a man may say that Jesus is God and be as correct as the man that says that Jesus is not God. It all depends on what he means and how he is using the words by their meanings which at times may differ depending on how they are used.

    We have a lot of liberty on these matters. But let’s use our liberty for the sake of furthering a brother on the right path if indeed we know where it is and how it goes.

    It seems to me that there may even be a situation that may arise in which a man may say that there was not anyone with Jesus when he created the heaven and earth in the beginning, not Plato, not Socrates, not Buddha, not Muhammad, not Joseph Smith, not
    Billy Graham, not you or I either, though this does not mean that he could not hear of us, see us, or know of those who would come after him. And this also does not mean that God was not with him.

    It seems to me that the prophet Isaiah used similar language when he wrote of things which I read of, especially between chapters 42-45. When I read of these things it seems to me that a man may say that both Jesus and God the Father said the same things together, and this is a great mystery.

    I am one that does not put Hebrews 1:10-12 into a parenthesis as I believe those verses apply to both God the Father and Jesus the Son, as do so many other scriptures about God. As I have said, this is a great mystery.

    One may believe that Jesus existed before his divine conception but being limited to that of a promise of God, a prophetic word given about him by the prophets, or as a declaration of faith that later came to be, and was found to be true.

    Another may believe that Jesus was indeed a being, in the form of God prior to his conception in the womb of Mary, as a person exists because that person presently is.

    Some believe more than others.

    Some like the phrase “God in three persons, blessed Trinity.”, while another prefers ” God in Christ Jesus, blessed Diety.” instead.

    Who has the right to impose one way over another? Yet we may discuss what we believe with the intent of furthering one another on the right way. If and when we have found ourselves to have walked out of the way of Christ, then let’s repent, find our salvation at the cross, make things right and find the better way to walk and do it in Christ as best we can. There is nothing good outside of him.

  38. on 20 Sep 2010 at 8:51 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc,
    Actually the problem is with you and others inferring/implying from vague passages, which don’t explicitly and clearly teach what you claim, and then extrapolating from this the ridiculous claim, that it is clearly taught, or that it proves something, which in fact it doesn’t.

    Like I’ve said many times before in my messages above, you should have at least one clear unambiguous scripture that says, Yeshua/Jesus is God, or that God died for our sins, or that God is 3 persons in one, etc…

    You also didn’t answer, how the 2nd. person in the Trinity, who personally created the universe and everything in it, could be tempted with promises of being given primitive worldly kingdoms to control and govern???

    Did he forget that he had created the world and everything in it???

    If he was actually God, how could He (the creator of the universe) have been tempted in the slightest bit to bow down and worship Satan???

    In short, your version of the temptation of Christ makes a mockery out of the trials and tribulations of the human Yeshua/Jesus. According to you he was inherently good and it was impossible for him to do anything wrong. So, how could there have even been any kind of temptation whatsoever???

    Like I said above, your views reduce his temptation in the desert to a hoax, or at best an elaborate charade, that was performed for some unexplained reason…

  39. on 20 Sep 2010 at 9:09 pmMarc Taylor

    DT,
    The passages are clear but they are unclear to those who choose to “muddy the waters”.
    As I previously wrote there is more than one way to express a trut claim. If I said, “She is my daughter” there is no need for me to tell you that she is a female.
    I answred your question…Christ was also a man and Satan can be so delusioned by his power that he might believe that Christ would submit to him.

  40. on 20 Sep 2010 at 10:20 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc,
    You said, “The passages are clear…”

    My whole point is that they are not clear, and are only comprehensible to someone that holds a preconception of the doctrine of the Trinity actually means!!!

    If you were able to give the bible to someone, who somehow had never heard of the Trinity, and had them study it for a year or so, with no extra biblical writings to study. It would be impossible for them to come up with this complex theory of the Trinity, that originally took centuries of arguing, debating, and compromising, which finally ended near the end of the 4th. century, with the doctrine we have today.

    You also said, “If I said, ‘She is my daughter’ there is no need for me to tell you she is a female’..”

    That is of course true. But you WOULD have to explicitly tell me that she was also her own mother, but yet somehow still a separate person from her mother. Otherwise I wouldn’t have a clue, would I???

    You also didn’t answer how a person/deity that created the universe and everything in it could be tempted by with promises of being given primitive worldly kingdoms to control and govern???

    Did He forget that he had created the universe and everything in it???

    You also didn’t answer, how God (the creator of the universe) and who created Satan and the angels, could have been tempted in the slightest bit to bow down and worship Satan???

    You just said that, “Satan can be so delusioned by his power that he might believe that Christ would submit to him.”

    From what I can see, you are saying that there was never the slightest chance that Yeshua/Jesus would have submitted to him (Satan). In other words, you are saying that in reality there was never any real temptation in the desert. Which brings up the obvious question then of, Why did Yeshua/Jesus go through this elaborate charade???

    What possible explanation could you provide, that would explain that the very first thing Yeshua/Jesus did after his baptism, was to fast for 40 days and nights in the desert, and then (pretend) to be tempted by Satan???

  41. on 20 Sep 2010 at 10:45 pmFrank D

    If he is God, why bother fasting. What’s the point?

  42. on 20 Sep 2010 at 11:20 pmMarc Taylor

    FrankD,
    Because He is also a man.
    ——————
    DT,
    It is clear that Christ is God by the fact that he is properly prayed to which necessitates omniscience and omnipotence.

  43. on 20 Sep 2010 at 11:52 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc,
    You are just implying that, “It is clear Christ is God by the fact that he is properly prayed to which necessitates omniscience and omnipotence.”

    I’ve already told you that there is nothing strange about a person who is sitting at the right hand of God, and who has been given (from someone else) all authority in heaven and on earth, to be properly prayed to. Especially when part of his job is to be the mediator between us and God.

    That is another thing about the Trinity that doesn’t seem to make any sense to me. How can Almighty God be the mediator between us and God??? The way I see it only a human Yeshua/Jesus could be a mediator between us and God. The fact that Yeshua/Jesus had to depend on someone else (his/our Father) to give him all authority in heaven in earth, then it is impossible for him to be Almighty.

    For someone to be Almighty they must not have to depend on anyone else to give them anything. An Almighty being, by definition, would not have to depend on someone else to give them authority of any kind, since if they were really Almighty, they would already have possessed ALL authority to begin with.

    I wish you could see how you are reading the doctrine of the Trinity into the biblical passages, where a much simpler and easier explanation is available. Why would God want to pretend to be his own son anyway??? I don’t understand why in Luke 9:35, it says, “”And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!’..”

    I honestly don’t understand how anyone can reconcile the fact that Yeshua/Jesus is not God, but yet at the same time claim that they are one being (both being Almighty). Especially when there is no clear, implicit, scripture that says this, or explains how this can possibly be.

    I’m sorry, but like I said in my messages above, the Trinity doesn’t seem to make any sense to me…

  44. on 21 Sep 2010 at 1:59 amMarc Taylor

    DT,
    An omniscient Being is by defintion “God” – the same holds true for an omnipotent Being.

  45. on 21 Sep 2010 at 11:06 amRay

    It seems to me that an all powerful ruler, such as a king in his kingdom is by definition a god. (though he may or may not fit all the definitions of that word “god”. He wouldn’t have to, to qualify as a god.) If his kingdom is the kingdom of heaven, then there is good reason to refer to him as God, even as one knows that there is one who is greater than he, whom he loves and serves. To compare such a one to God would not be wrong. So it is that way with Jesus.

    Joseph being under Pharaoh (after the Pharaoh promoted him to his high position) could be referred to as the Pharaoh by a slave and it wouldn’t necessarily be a wrong use of the word Pharaoh, even though there is a difference between Joseph and the king of Egypt.

    An example of this would be if two slaves were working some kind of work and one says to the other, “Be careful what you say. He is Pharaoh.”

    When I read Matthew 24:36, it seems to me that Jesus may have been included among the group of those who did not know the the day and hour of his coming in Judgment in the kingdom, for he said that no man knows, nor the angels of heaven, but God only.

    If Jesus does indeed know the time and day of his coming, I haven’t seen it revealed in scripture.

    If a man perceives Jesus as God in every way to the fullest extent possible, I could see how he might think or presume that Jesus knows the exact time and hour of his coming. It seems to me that the Trinitarian view of Jesus is to see him as God, as far as they could possibly allow, and it seems to many a Christian, they often go over the bounds, over the limits, beyond what the scriptures have said.

    That’s one reason I am not a Trinitarian, nor do I have any desire to be of that particular disipline or persuasion. It simply is the cause of too much trouble in the church, in my opinion, something that is not necessary for a Christian to be doing. It’s not how I want to spend my life. There’s far too much work to be done for the king of glory in my opinion.

  46. on 21 Sep 2010 at 5:56 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc,
    You said, “An omniscient Being is by definition – ‘God’ – the same holds true for an omnipotent Being.”

    I understand you believe Yeshua/Jesus is ‘God’ and as result believe he is omniscient and omnipotent, but you have not provided one scripture that clearly says he is omniscient or omnipotent. You just repeatedly say he is without providing any proof, other then saying it’s your own opinion, or that if it’s proper to pray to him he must be etc…

    I (and Ray above) have both mentioned Mathew 24:36, where 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.” (ESV)

    If Yeshua/Jesus doesn’t know the day nor the hour of the end times, and doesn’t know when he will be returning as well, then how can you continue to repeat over and over again that he is omniscient???

    What scripture can you provide that clearly says he is omniscient???

    Do you just imply it indirectly from unspecific passages, the same way you imply that he is Almighty God???

    As for being omnipotent I have repeatedly pointed out that 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 – Emphasis mine).

    If someone (the Father) gave him ‘All authority in heaven and on earth’ then it logically follows that this someone is much greater than Yeshua/Jesus (the Son). Therefore that completely eliminates the possibility of Yeshua/Jesus being omnipotent. Since in Yeshua’s/Jesus’ own words someone, who is greater than he, gave him this authority.

    Being omnipotent means that NO ONE can be greater or more powerful than you. This seems crystal clear to me. Was Joseph really ‘All Powerful’ in Egypt, or was he just the representative of someone who was ‘All Powerful’???

  47. on 21 Sep 2010 at 6:21 pmMarc Taylor

    Joseph could never be referred to as Pharaoh. Colossians 2:3 teaches that Christ has all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge – this proves His omniscience. The fact that He has all power proves His omnipotence (Matthew 28:18).

  48. on 21 Sep 2010 at 7:23 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc,
    You said, “Colossians 2:3 teaches that Christ has all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge – this proves His omniscience.”

    Again, you simply implying something that is not directly stated and then declaring that your implications/interpretation ‘proves it’. This is not a proof. A proof is where Yeshua/Jesus readily admits that there are things he doesn’t know, like in Mathew 24:36. How can someone who is omniscient not know about certain things that someone else (His Father) knows about???

    You also said, “The fact that He has all power proves His omnipotence (Matthew 28:18).”

    I can’t believe your quoting the same verse that I have repeatedly quoted, and on top of that you ignore the words that I had even CAPITALIZED for you in msg. #46. “…has been GIVEN TO ME.” (ESV – emphasis mine). What part of giving don’t you understand???

    You are completely ignoring the fact that someone more powerful than Yeshua/Jesus (his/our Father), ‘GAVE HIM’ “All authority on heaven and on earth”. Just like in the OT someone more powerful then Joseph ‘GAVE HIM’ all authority throughout the land of Egypt…

  49. on 21 Sep 2010 at 7:31 pmrobert

    Marc
    You could create a company and then assign all authority to the CEO even proxy the voting shares . Would the CEO now be to creator of the company?
    The Ceo could even buy the company but could not ever be the creator of the company.
    You can give away everything but who you are and what you have accomplished will always be yours.
    Yes Jesus was Giving Authority to even act as God when it comes to those in heaven and on earth but That doesnt make Him Equal to God Yahweh, Just makes him a servant with authority like a CEO.

  50. on 21 Sep 2010 at 7:53 pmMarc Taylor

    DT,
    What is recorded in Matthew took place before Christ was glorfied. If you can’t see that Colossians 2:3 teaches that Christ has all wisdom then….well ya know.
    The fact that Christ has all-power (which you don’t deny) proves he is omnipotent. He was given the right to now exercise what He always had. Why couldn’t he have chose not to employ it during His time on the earth?
    —–
    Robert,
    Your example doesn’t work because we are talking about ALL power over the created universe and an omnipotent Being. Indeed, Christ originally had this before the universe was created (John 17:5) which demonstrates His eternity.

  51. on 21 Sep 2010 at 8:55 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc,
    You said, “If you can’t see that Colossians 2:3 teaches that Christ has all wisdom then…well ya know.”

    I didn’t say that Colossians 2:3 doesn’t teach that Christ has all wisdom. I just said your implied interpretation that “this proves His omniscience” is basically flawed. God the Father gave his Son all his wisdom so that Yeshua/Jesus could justly and properly utilize the other thing that was also ‘GIVEN’ to him, which was “All authority in heaven and on earth”.

    You also keep ignoring the fact that being omnipotent means (by definition) that no one can be greater than you. The person who gave “All authority on heaven and on earth” is obviously greater then the person who received it.

    You also said, “He was given the right to now exercise what He always had.”

    Again you are taking something that you believed, prior to even studying the bible, and trying to claim that passages like Mathew 28:18 somehow support your preconceptions. This passage does not say that “He was given the right to now exercise what He always had.” It clearly says, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been GIVEN TO ME.” (my emphasis).

    You also said, “Why couldn’t he have chose not to employ it during His time on the earth?”

    Why doesn’t the bible say anything about this then???

    You can make up any storyline outside of what the bible clearly teaches that you want to, but don’t try to say that it is based on bible passages, when it is clearly not even indirectly implied. Like I said before. If you didn’t know about this complex doctrine of the Trinity before you began to study the bible, then there is no way you could come up with this complex theory from reading the bible by itself (without reading any extra biblical writings).

    At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…

  52. on 21 Sep 2010 at 11:12 pmRay

    The power that Jesus has is the power that God gave him, no more and no less. It is limited by how much power God gave him.
    All that there is to receive of God is how much Jesus has. I trust that God likely gave him all the power that he has, certainly at least as much as he will need to deliver everything that will be delivered to God.

    Jesus certainly had enough power to create all that is, excepting him who gave him that power, for God was created by no one.

    Thus, we should see Jesus as God.

    Clearly it isn’t necessarily wrong if someone making a play or movie aobut Joseph in Egypt, would write the script such that a slave would refer to Joseph as Pharaoh, even though all the viewers know the difference.

    To us, Jesus is the wisdom of God, for what difference is there, really? Technically there is somewhat of a distintion. I am aware of that, but in some practical sense, what really is the difference?

    You see, there is a sense about our words and there are legitimate
    ways to use them, even in some ways we are unacustomed to use them, but they can be used in those ways. Sometimes I will find that I said something in a way I had never said before, or at least don’t remember saying it that way before. That by itself doesn’t mean that it’s wrong necessarily, though someone who is looking for a fault may find some fault in how I said it. Whether it is a legitimate fault on my part or not will be judged by the Lord Jesus
    Christ.

    People tell us what they are about. Some people may as well say, “I like to make up my own rules that I decide others must follow.” Their actions tell us what they are about.

    I believe Jesus is God, but there is a sense in which I say so. I do not want to promote the Trinitarian doctrine. I could say that he is all of God, and is God as much as “as is” is as “as is” is. I suppose that just sounds like rhetoric to some. Maybe I should say that he is God just as much as a blue sky is blue.

    I suppose I can say that Jesus is the Son of God. That is who he is.
    What Jesus is, is God Almighty. That to me is what he is.

    We are not all going to be exactly like one another. That’s not any of our callings. Life in Christ just isn’t a look alike contest where the one who looks most like everybody else wins. That would be a difficult contest to judge it seems to me. I suppose we would need a standard.

    Now let’s think about who and what Jesus is and consider our future if we continue in him and become as he is. Now isn’t that a bright future?

    I find in life that there are some minute points that are not worth battling over. We will choose our battles, and some of the battles will come to us.

    Maybe I should say about this or that, “I don’t know, maybe it’s so, but I’m not sure, could be something like that, but I just don’t know for sure if all of that is correct. Some of it seems doubtful right now to me and here is why I say so…”

    I don’t want to be as the officers of the Law in James Ryle’s dream/vision The Sons of Thunder, which can be googled. More guns and ammo, tighter locking of elbows, and more protection might not be the answer, but may in fact be a symptom of a much greater problem.

    The symptom of the problem is a problem but is not the greater underlying problem. It will not be solved by more clubs and gear, and tighter interlocking of elbows.

    I think we should ask ourselves “What is it about the monument they were defending and what caused them to be enamored with it? Were they enamored by it and if so, why? Was it the monument that enamored them, or were they being charmed by something else? Why the enchantment? Was something just a bit off? Did God tell men to build the thing or was it simply allowed by God? Is it for a test of some sort? Is it a part of God’s judgment? Does he want it taken down, or simply left alone? Should we be occupied by it, and if so, for how long? “

  53. on 21 Sep 2010 at 11:39 pmMarc Taylor

    DT,
    All wisdom does not mean omniscience?
    The Bible does say about Christ humbling Himself and taking on the form of a servant. A servant must sumbit to somebody.
    —-
    Ray,
    We are talking about reality not some fictitious movie.

  54. on 21 Sep 2010 at 11:54 pmDoubting Thomas

    Ray,
    You said, “The power that Jesus has is the power that God gave him, no more and no less.”

    I agree completely. We should expect that God would give our Lord, King, and Messiah such power, so that he can reign over us on behalf of his Father (God Almighty).

    You also said, “To us, Jesus is the wisdom of God, for what difference is there, really? Technically there is somewhat of a distinction. I am aware of that, but in some practical sense, what really is the difference?”

    You are correct, that the right hand of God would not be any different than God himself. The only practical difference is that by denying that he was a human being, born of a human mother, you are denying the trials, tribulations, and temptations that Yeshua/Jesus had to undergo on our behalf. Not to mention the pain and suffering that he also had to undergo after the Last Supper before his glorious resurrection.

    You also said, “We are not all going to be exactly like one another. That’s not any of our callings. Life in Christ just isn’t a look alike contest where the one who looks most like everyone else wins.”

    Again, I agree with you. I don’t expect Marc and others to be exactly the same as I am. For God created each of us to be a unique child that he could love and cherish. I was just trying, to the best of my ability, to explain to him, why I believe what it is I believe…

  55. on 22 Sep 2010 at 12:33 amMarc Taylor

    DT,
    Thanks but time to move on. Since all power in Matthew 28:18 and all wisdom in Colossians 2:3 are not enough to convince you of His omniscience I seriously doubt if there is any other way to convince those who refuse to see it.

    Later

  56. on 22 Sep 2010 at 7:33 amDoubting Thomas

    Marc, (#53)
    You asked, “All wisdom does not meant omniscience?”

    In order to have omniscience you require more than just ‘all wisdom’ you also require ‘all knowledge’. There cannot be factual events, like when the end days are going to be, or when you will be returning to establish your kingdom, that another person (the Father) knows, but you don’t know. Of course I ‘ve already pointed this out to you many times before.

    You also said, “The bible does say about Christ humbling Himself and taking on the form of a servant.”

    Yeshua/Jesus not only humbled himself so that he could be a servant to God (the Father), but he also humbled himself so that he could be servant to all of humankind. Serving as the perfect lamb without blemish or defect, who suffered and died for our sins.
    He couldn’t have humbled himself any more, or been more of a servant than he was for us as well as his Father/our Father. But, that does not mean that he pre-existed as some kind of supernatural being.

    If you want to interpret all these verses you mention to mean that Yeshua/Jesus was some sort of pre-existing supernatural being (God person), when there is a much easier and much simpler explanation available, you are of course free to do so. But, if you do, you have no choice but to ignore many clear and precise prophesies from the OT regarding the Messiah.

    The Messiah was prophesied to be “like Moses, from among you, from your brothers.” There are also many prophesies that very clearly state that the coming Messiah/King would be a descendant of David or in some passages, it says, the son of David. There is no way you can twist a pre-existing supernatural being (God person), that existed since the very beginning, even before creation, to fit with any of these prophesies.

    That leaves you with no option, but to completely ignore these clear and precise bible passages from the OT.

    In msg. #55, you said, “Thanks but time to move on.”

    To be honest, I was thinking the same thing. It seems we are just talking in circles at this point (repeating the same things). I hope there are no hard feelings on your part and that we can be friends. I also hope that even if I didn’t convince you, to see what it is that I see, then at least I hope that I convinced you to change your mind about whether people like me (who don’t believe in the Trinity), can achieve salvation or not.

    You must admit, that God is probably not going to punish people like me, just because we refuse to try to force the Trinity doctrine into all these various passages that we have been discussing. I believe God is much more interested in how we treat each other, then what doctrines we may or may not believe.

    May the peace of God be with you, and with us all, and God bless…

  57. on 22 Sep 2010 at 6:59 pmRay

    Thomas, I read post 54, and it seemed as though you are saying that I do not know that Jesus was a real human being and that I deny his trials and such.

    That is not a true perspective of mine. I don’t know how you can imagine such a thing came from me. It did not. I did not say any of those things.

    It seems that you accuse me of denying his birth from Mary his mother, something I have often told you of. Why would you attack me falsely in this manner?

    Is your God given purpose to deliberately destroy the church by false accusations? Please repent, in Jesus’ name.

    Mark Taylor, when I was writing about a ficticious movie I was showing you how words are really used. I was speaking to you something about a reality you need to accept.

  58. on 22 Sep 2010 at 7:45 pmDoubting Thomas

    Ray
    In msg. #52 you asked, “To us, Jesus is the wisdom of God, for what difference is there really? Technically there is somewhat of a distinction. I am aware of that, but in some practical sense what really is the difference?”

    I thought you were asking me, What is the practical difference between what Unitarians believe and what Trinitarians believe??? In my response in msg. #54, I was just trying to show the difference between these two different beliefs. I am truly sorry if I misunderstood what it was you were asking in the above question, and I whole heartedly repent for any false accusations I may have made against you and your beliefs.

    Like I said, I was talking about the beliefs that Trinitarians have and not your beliefs. Please accept my apology…

  59. on 22 Sep 2010 at 9:56 pmMarc Taylor

    OK DT. Thanks for your input.

  60. on 22 Sep 2010 at 10:15 pmRay

    Marc Taylor,
    It seems to me that it is OK for a play writer to write his script in such a way that he might call one man by the position of another
    by a character in his script and that doing such could be a proper use of language as we know it if it were done according to the proper rule of language.

    It seems to me that your position of this is that such a thing is simply fantasy and has no bearing on the topic we are talking about.

    If I have expressed your view clearly here please let me know.

    I do differ with your view on this matter.

    It seems to me that it’s OK for a man to say that Jesus is God even though the knows Jesus to be God’s Son, and that he may do so even as he knows there is a distinction between Jesus and God, but because he is as God is, to him, and even as he believes that Jesus is as God is toward all men and will be as God is toward all, with all the power of God and all the knowledge of God such as he does posess, he therefore will say that Jesus is God at times, even though he has not bought into the dicipline of the Trinitarians, nor does he have any desire to be of their persuasion.

    How does that man’s view of God and Jesus (from what you know of it) differ from yours?
    Please talk to us about this.

  61. on 22 Sep 2010 at 10:29 pmRay

    Thomas, I accept your apology. I’ve often felt in the past that I have been used by people for their purposes and am sensitive to it.
    Sometimes I have overreacted. It’s good to have a cause or purpose when it is right, and even if it is not the best cause, if one fights for it in right ways he can learn much from the experience. It’s good to go for higher ground whenever we can see it. If we can see it we really do need to go toward it.

  62. on 22 Sep 2010 at 10:48 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc,
    I would like to thank you for being open an honest about your beliefs. I’ve never actually had this deep of a conversation with a Trinitarian before. Usually they don’t want to talk in detail about, why it is they believe what they do, or they just out and out dismiss me as a heretic. I also appreciate the fact that you are polite and respectful. Something I have a lot of respect for…

    Ray,
    You said, “I’ve often felt in the past that I have been used by people for their purposes and am sensitive to it.”

    I also am sensitive about some things and have been known to overreact at times. One thing that really annoys me is when someone won’t give me a direct answer to a direct question. I believe in honest dialogue and get very frustrated when I am talking with people like that. That’s probably one of my biggest weaknesses/faults, is that I tend to get frustrated very easily. Especially with technology… 🙂

  63. on 23 Sep 2010 at 12:08 amMarc Taylor

    Ray,
    I just haven’t seen any evidence where Joseph was ever referred to as “Pharaoh”.
    The view that you described does not differ from mine in that Jesus is God and yet distinct from God the Father.

    Thank you DT.
    When Colossians 2:3 teaches that Christ has all the treasures of “wisdom and knowledge” does that not demand that Christ is omniscient?

  64. on 23 Sep 2010 at 6:02 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc,
    From my reading of Colossians 2:1-3, Paul is encouraging the church at Laodicea wishing, “(2) that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, (3) in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (ESV).

    It is indisputable that, before his assention, there were things that God (the Father) knew that his son Yeshua/Jesus did not know. It is most likely that after his assention, he was given much more knowledge than he had previously possessed. The bible is not really clear about whether Yeshua/Jesus, even today, possess ‘all knowledge’.

    It does say he has ‘all the treasures’ of wisdom and knowledge, but it doesn’t say he has ‘all knowledge’. Possessing ‘all the treasures’ is not the same thing as possessing ‘all the knowledge’. I am not a linguist but that is how it seems to me. Nevertheless it is indisputable that he was not omniscient before his assention, and, from what I can see, it is not even clear that he is omniscient now.

    Of course, I am just a layman, and this is just my own personal opinion…

  65. on 23 Sep 2010 at 7:28 pmrobert

    “It is indisputable that, before his assention, there were things that God (the Father) knew that his son Yeshua/Jesus did not know. It is most likely that after his assention, he was given much more knowledge than he had previously possessed.”

    Thomas
    I fully agree that Jesus’ knowledge and power was increased when he was exalted to the right hand of God. Does that mean he is omniscient and omnipotent? Absolutely not because to be omniscient requires that you would of allways knew everything therefore it would be impossible to increase in knowledge or to receive it and to be omnipotent requires that you always possesed ALL POWER and would be impossible for you to receive it because than you wouldnt of been all powerful.
    Now after Jesus was exalted would it be fitting for humankind to call him a God,pray through him or mention him as a member of the heavingly council along with God and His Spirit.
    Why not! but remember he was exalted to that position when he acended to God after His resurrection and was a complete human at birth and was possessed by the Holy spirit at his Baptism giving Him the authority to Preach the WORD that the Holy spirit commanded him to preach

  66. on 23 Sep 2010 at 8:04 pmRay

    Marc,
    I referred to Joseph as Pharaoh but I haven’t seen it done in the Bible either.

    What if a guy wrote a story about two men who as children used to set up their armies (little plastic army men) in a sandbox and then took turns lighting firecrackers and throwing them, and the one with the most left standing would win the battle, and then they both grew up and one became a general and the other became a scientist who developed a hydrogen bomb and they happened to be together when all this was being developed and one says to the other, “This hydrogen thing, is it a black cat, or maybe a Zebra?”, and the scientist says, “It’s more like a cherry bomb.”….

  67. on 23 Sep 2010 at 8:15 pmDoubting Thomas

    Ray,
    I’m sorry, but I don’t really understand the analogy your trying to make. But, then again, I also didn’t see this movie you and Marc are talking about…

  68. on 24 Sep 2010 at 12:29 amMarc Taylor

    DT,
    1. Colossians 2:3: Thayer says treasures is used epexegetically (page 291). Thus the treasures are all the wisdom and knowledge.
    2. Christ is the heartknower in Acts 1:24 and heartknower is defined as being omnisicent:
    a. NIDNTT: This belief in the omniscience of God is expressed succinctly by the adj. kardiognswttess (2:183, Heart – T. Sorg).
    b. TDNT: the omniscient God knows the innermost being of every man where the decision is made either for Him or against Him (3:613, kardiognwstees – Behm).
    3. Because only God is omniscient this necessitates that Chris is God:
    a. NIDNTT: 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).
    4. John 2:24, 25
    a. NIDNTT: He sees Nathanael under the fig tree (1:48) and the thoughts and inner nature of man (2:25) (3:517, See – K. Dahn).
    b. TDNT: the Joahannine Christ knows the hearts (Jn. 2:25; 21:17) (TDNT 3:613, kardiognwstees, footnote #1 – Behm).
    c. Thayer: to know one, his person, character, mind, plans: Jn. 1.48 (49); 2.24 (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, ginwskw, page 117).

  69. on 24 Sep 2010 at 12:47 pmKarl

    Hi Mark,

    2. Christ is the heartknower in Acts 1:24 and heartknower is defined as being omnisicent:

    How do we know that Christ is being addressed as “Lord” in Acts 1:24? How do we know that the Father is not being addressed?

  70. on 24 Sep 2010 at 4:27 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc,
    I agree that the treasures are the wisdom and knowledge. But, I don’t agree that having ‘all the treasures’ equals having ‘all the knowledge’. If Paul wanted to say that Yeshua/Jesus was onmiscient and possessed ‘all knowledge’, then why didn’t he just come out and say that, instead of saying, “in whom all hidden all the treasures.”

    It seems to me that Paul is saying, that all the treasures that a Christian could long for, or need, can be found in (the teachings of) Christ. All wisdom and knowledge that you need to be a good Christian, that will please God (the Father), and will help you to attain salvation, can be found within the teachings of his Son Yeshua/Jesus.

    In other words these treasures (wisdom and knowledge) are hidden in the teachings of Christ, for his followers to discover, so they can enrich their lives and live abundantly and faithfully, as God wants all of his children to live.

    I’m not an expert, but that’s the way I read it, anywaze…

  71. on 24 Sep 2010 at 7:13 pmRay

    Christ as the good shepherd knows his sheep. That by itself may be enough for me to receive that he knows what is in the heart of those that are his.

    I don’t know if Jesus knows everything. I really don’t. I know he knows enough, more than enough for me to trust him. Is it just his knowledge that causes a man to trust him? I believe he fully knows God. I believe he knows the one who is infinate in knowledge. I wonder what God withholds from him,… maybe nothing.

    Some may wonder how it is that a man can say he believes Jesus is God and yet wonder if Jesus knows everything there is to know, or if he has all the knowledge God has in everything without any exception.

    I suppose it’s because I read Matthew 24:36. I wonder if Jesus right now knows that day when it will be. I say I wonder because I really don’t know. Maybe some people do know that Jesus knows, but I say I am one that isn’t sure.

    And if I stand on the truth, am I not in a safe place? Isn’t it OK for me to be there?

  72. on 24 Sep 2010 at 7:18 pmMarc Taylor

    Hello Karl,
    The evidence is overwhelming that Christ is being addressed in Acts 1:24. If it read theos people would insist that they were praying t the Father but it reads kurios. This title is primarily used for the Lord Jesus. The evidence must be quite compelling that it doesn’t.
    There is much more evidence but I’ll wait to see if those that deny Christ is being prayed to here (or anywhere else) will do with what I have written thus far.
    ————————
    Hello DT,
    I already addressed that. The phrase is epexegetical.
    John 2 also teaches that Christ is omniscient.

  73. on 24 Sep 2010 at 8:48 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc,
    I googled epexegetical and it comes from the word ‘epexegesis’ which means ‘Additional explanation or explanatory material’.

    This additional explanation you quoted from Thayers, that ‘the treasures are all the wisdom and knowledge’, you seem to have interpreted/explained as ‘the treasures are ALL wisdom and ALL knowledge’. Neither of these two interpretations/explanations come from the bible passage itself.

    It seems your whole argument rests on your interpretation/explanation of someone else’s interpretation/explanation, and not on what the passage actually says. As I’ve pointed out before an implication, or interpretation is nothing more than an opinion, and is not a proof.

    The passage clearly says, “in whom are hidden all the treasures”, it does not say in whom are hidden ‘All wisdom’ and ‘All knowledge’. The passage then goes on to clearly say that these treasures are “wisdom and knowledge.” I don’t understand why you would think that quoting this other person’s opinion would constitute a proof of some sort.

    I believe proofs come from God’s word, not from the opinions of people…

  74. on 24 Sep 2010 at 8:50 pmRay

    John 2 teaches that Christ is omniscient? I don’t see that.

    I looked again at Matthew 24:36 and see that Jesus had just stated in the previous verse that his words shall not pass away.
    So I am inclinded to say that Matthew 24:36 could be one of those
    words which is still in effect just as it is written.

    I suppose a man could take the position that Matthew 24:36 belonged to the time in which Jesus said it and to that time only, but I wonder if that would stand.

    I’m inclined to think that to this day it’s something that only the Father knows just as it appears that Jesus had said. It seems rather clear to me that at the time Jesus said it, he was saying that only the Father knew of that day and hour, and so it seems to me that he was letting us know that Jesus himself did not know the day and hour of that time.

    At any rate, as to when that day and hour will be is something the Father knows, and it appears to me that no one else knows. It seems to me that Jesus will be the first to know, when the Father tells him when it is.

    That’s what it looks like to me.

  75. on 24 Sep 2010 at 9:16 pmRay

    I looked at John 4 about the woman at the well. Her testimony of Jesus was that she met a man that told her all things that ever she did. (John 4:29)

    I’ve heard a minister say that some people he has ministered to, seem to think that he knows everything about them because he told them something which he received from God. He told us that he doesn’t know everything but only some things that God tells him
    when he ministers.

    I suppose a man could try to make the case that such is the case with Jesus when he ministered to people, or a man could make the case that Jesus already knew all things about everybody.

    Which case do you think would be easier to make?

    If Jesus knew everything all the time, why was he so often hearing from the Father?

    I can see where a man might say “Jesus knows everything.” That I can see.

  76. on 24 Sep 2010 at 9:26 pmRay

    When a man ministers with the gifts of the spirit to others, he may seem like Jesus to them, while Jesus is as God to him.

  77. on 25 Sep 2010 at 2:01 amMarc Taylor

    DT,
    If I said “He has all the treasures of gold and silver” I am referring to the fact that all the gold and silver belongs to him. It is very clear. And the Bible teaches elsewhere that Christ is omniscient (John 2:24, 25; Acts 1:24, 25).
    ————————
    Ray,
    The people don’t mean “everything” in the absolute sense. It’s simply a manner of speaking. Ask this misister if he knows when their parents were born, where they were born, where they met, etc etc.

    No one else but the omniscient God can be be properly referred to as “heartknower” as Christ is in Acts 1:24.

  78. on 25 Sep 2010 at 7:30 amrobert

    “If I said “He has all the treasures of gold and silver” I am referring to the fact that all the gold and silver belongs to him. ”

    Marc
    This is where your logic fails completely.
    The gold and silver just decribe what kind of treasures, Now if it was to say the treasures of all the gold and silver then that could mean what you say but not always.
    But you can make it say whatever you want to support your belief and those who share your belief will back you and those that believe different will oppose ,whether or not its right.
    Its very hard to find an unbias opinion on this.

  79. on 25 Sep 2010 at 7:58 amrobert

    Marc
    Here in this verse we see that Jesus says that THE FATHER is the only one that knows the times and seasons which makes Jesus less in Knowledge therefore making him NOT omniscient.
    Unless your willing to call Jesus a liar then you must stop claiming he is omniscient NOW!

    Acts 1
    7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 But ye shall receive power, [1] after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you:

    Plus in this verse it shows that God had to give Jesus this knowledge to show his servants. Some people have a problem with Revelation because they feel that Jesus would of mentioned this while he was living, But he couldnt because God hadnt shared this knowledge with him yet.

    1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

  80. on 25 Sep 2010 at 8:44 amMarc Taylor

    Robert,
    Not only the kind but the amount…..all.

    You keep ignoring Acts 1:24.

  81. on 25 Sep 2010 at 9:04 amrobert

    Marc
    No I am not ignoring Acts 1:24, Considering Jesus Just said in Acts 1:7 he didnt know everything I am pretty sure that your reading of Acts 1:24 is completely out of context.
    But most everything you use is out of context!!!

  82. on 25 Sep 2010 at 9:35 amDoubting Thomas

    Marc,
    In msg. #80, you said, “Not only the kind but the amount…..all.”

    I can understand how someone who believes Yeshua/Jesus is omniscient and possess ‘all knowledge’ could force read your interpretation/explanation into this passage. But, that doesn’t change the fact that this is not what the passage actually says. I think I have clearly explained what the passage naturally says, without trying to force read my views into it.

    Since we seem to be talking in circles on this passage (repeating ourselves), maybe it would be best if we just agreed to disagree on this. May the peace of God be with you, and with all of us.

    Have a good weekend…

  83. on 25 Sep 2010 at 5:29 pmMarc Taylor

    Robert,
    Thanks for dodging Acts 1:24. I mentioned kardiognwstes in #68 and the passage where it is found (Acts 1:24) in #72 – and in #77. Three times is not enough…perhpas 300 will do in order for you to “see” it.
    ————-
    DT,
    It reads “all” in Colossians 2:3.

  84. on 25 Sep 2010 at 5:57 pmRay

    Those who hold Jesus to be God in the strict Trinitarian sense may say that to be one who knows all the secrets of the heart of men, one must be God, while those who hold Jesus to be the Son of God and even the Lord God Almighty may say that both Jesus and God
    the Father know all the secrets in the heart of men.

    It seems to me that we have to allow for that flexibility.

    I wonder how many have heard of the square watermelons. I saw pictures of square watermelons. They were shaped square and they were all about the same size because the grower put some kind of square baskets around them.

    I think the baskets were made of steel wire. They looked just like regular watermelons except that they had the square shape. I’ve heard that they taste the same as the round melons.

    The square ones stack up real nice. Some people don’t mind square melons, but others think it’s kind o’ sad because watermelons are supposed to be round.

    I don’t really know if watermelons are supposed to be round. I don’t think I could make that case well enough to support that as a doctrine. I don’t know if it would stand the test of fire at the appearing of the Lord Jesus.

    I guess it’s a matter of opinion.

    Why would a grower do that to melons?

  85. on 25 Sep 2010 at 6:01 pmrobert

    “Three times is not enough…perhpas 300 will do in order for you to “see” it.”

    Marc
    I am sure I can dismiss the next 300 as being out of context too, so bring it on!!!

  86. on 25 Sep 2010 at 6:11 pmRay

    When I read Acts 1:24, it looked to me like they were praying to God. These men no doubt had learned to pray to God that way for much of their life. I think it’s still OK to pray to God that way. The usual prayers of men like these were to God the Father it seems to me.

    I don’t believe that men will always address God the Father as “Father” in their prayers.

    Can we really prove that these men prayed to Jesus at this time, and that the words we read in Acts 1:24 were addressing the Lord Jesus specifically and that they were not addressing God the Father?

    I for one don’t know how to make such a case. I wouldn’t know where to start. It seems to me that this is one of those gray areas that we should leave gray, unless someone has some clear light on it.

    I can see where a man might think they are addressing Jesus in this prayer, and I can see where a man might think they are calling upon God the Father also.

    I think it wise to be flexible about these things. I haven’t seen scripture prove it one way or the other.

  87. on 25 Sep 2010 at 6:15 pmRay

    Is it OK if I’m not a Trinitarian? I don’t think I’m quite ready yet.

  88. on 25 Sep 2010 at 7:11 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc,
    In msg. #83 you said, “DT, It reads ‘all’ in Colossions 2:3.”

    But, it doesn’t say ‘all’ where you wish that it did, in front of the word ‘power’. It says ‘all’ in front of the words ‘the treasures’. Wishing that the word ‘all’ were located in a different location in the passage doesn’t make it so. No matter how many times you repeat the wish/statement.

    IN msg. #77 you said, “DT, If I said, ‘He has all the treasures of gold and silver’ I am referring to the fact that all the gold and silver belong to him. It is very clear.”

    What is clear, is that you are not understanding what we are trying to explain to you. If I add a modifying clause on to the end of the example, you give above, and said, ‘He has all the treasures of gold and silver, that were found in the Caribbean.’

    This would not mean that, ‘He had all the gold and silver that exists in the world.’ Would it??? It would mean exactly what the sentence says, ‘He has all the treasures.’ No more, no less. Where the treasures are located, or any other modifier describing the treasures, could be implied in the rest of the sentence.

    In the passage we are discussing the rest of the sentence reads, “of wisdom and knowledge.” There are no modifiers saying it is ‘all wisdom’ or ‘all knowledge’. You are forcibly reading something into the text that it clearly does not say. It seems to me you do the same thing with all the other passage you claim ‘proves’ Yeshua/Jesus is God. Force reading or wishing something into a bible passage does not make it so.

    I really do think we’ve been going around in circles on this passage long enough. Why don’t we just agree to disagree, and move on…

  89. on 25 Sep 2010 at 8:17 pmMarc Taylor

    Ray,
    When Luke records the expression “Thou hast chosen” (eklegomai) who does he say it refers to previous to the prayer in Acts 1:2?
    ————-
    DT,
    I already cited Thayer that it is used epexegetically. Cite a source (besides your opinion) where it doesn’t mean that Christ has all wisdom and knowledge in this passage.

  90. on 25 Sep 2010 at 9:47 pmRay

    Marc,
    It seems to me that God spoke through David what was spoken of in Acts 1:20. Does that seem right to you?

    Like I said, I am not ready to become a Trinitarian yet, even though
    it does seems clear to me that according to Acts 1:2, the one who was taken up and gave commandments to the apostles was Jesus.

    It seems to me that a man might make the case that they may have been praying to God, asking him which of the two men he has chosen to take the place of Judas since it would not seem to out of order for the apostles whom Jesus chose to pray to God on matters such as this, knowing that Jesus taught them to pray to God.

    It seems to me that a man might make the case that the apostles decided to do this because of what was written in the Psalm knowing that it was God who spoke through the prophet David.

    I would not want to be one who attempts to prove that they prayed to the Father and not to Jesus, any more than I would want to be the one who attempts to prove that it was Jesus who they addressed in the prayer, as I do not think it to be a wise thing to do, based upon the lack of evidence.

    Is there anything else you wish do defend at this time?

  91. on 25 Sep 2010 at 10:13 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc,
    You said, “I already cited Thayer that it is used epexegetically.”

    From what I understand your saying that Thayer believes that ‘the treasures’ are a further explanation (expexegesis) of ‘wisdom and power’ so the modifier ‘all’ used before the words ‘the treasures’, can just be moved to another part of the sentence and put in front of the words ‘wisdom and power’.

    Like I said in msg. #73, “I don’t understand why you would think that quoting this other person’s opinion would constitute a proof of some sort. I believe proofs come from God’s word not from the opinions of people…”

    You also said, “Cite a source (besides your own opinion) where it doesn’t mean that Christ has all wisdom and knowledge in this passage.”

    I would rather just agree to disagree, but if you insist on me citing a source, then I cite my good friend Robert… 🙂

  92. on 25 Sep 2010 at 10:55 pmMarc Taylor

    Hello Robert,
    God can speak through David but David is never to be addressed in prayer. The Greek word for “show” is anadeiknumi and is used only one other time by the same author in reference to the Lord – and that “Lord” being the Lord Jesus (Luke 10:1).

  93. on 25 Sep 2010 at 11:55 pmRay

    I don’t think it to be unusual if people speak to one they see or hear from. That seems to be the norm in this world. There are examples from scripture where people have seen or heard from the Lord Jesus and have responded by speaking to him. ( I think of Saul on the road to Damascus and Stephen at his stoning)

    I’ve heard that prayer is speaking to God, but I’m not sure if I should call all speaking to the Lord, prayer, though it could be called that. I think it could be a bit misleading. It might color the event in some kind of light that might cause another to get a bit off course. Yet, if a man see Jesus in a vision and he find himself speaking to him concerning what he saw, it can be just like a prayer, and I think we could call it that.

    I’ve read or heard of some that have met people who have lived, and met them in a spiritual experience. One wrote of the experience and what was said between them.

    Jesus spoke to Moses and Elijah during the time he was transfigured, but I wouldn’t call that prayer.

    It’s true that we don’t want to pray to David, but what if you were caught up to heaven, or experienced heaven in a dream or vision of some sort and in the experience met David. If he talked to you, would you respond by talking to him?

    I wonder what I would do if I ever saw David in a vision. I suppose I would ask God the meaning of it. I suppose I would pray to God about it.

    I prefer to not make a doctrine that says, “Because people have prayed to Jesus, and because some people do, and it’s apparently OK to do so, it means that Jesus is God.”

    I certainly don’t want to make up a thing like that and then work to defend it the rest of my life. What would be the point of that? I find things in scripture that I am amazed at and want to share with people, like isn’t it something how nearly all that we read about that pertains to God in the Bible also pertains to Jesus? Maybe all that I have read about God in the Bible also pertains to Christ.

    There’s also so many things that we read of about David that pertains to the Lord Jesus.

    So what should I say about these things? What can I say?

    I can see Jesus as both God and the son of man.

    I opened my Bible at random and my eyes fell upon Song of Solomon 5:5 which says “I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock.”

    A few verses later it says, “The watchmen that went about the city
    found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my veil from me.”

    I was thinking that some of us can relate to that as the church is likened to the woman in this book as it has been said.

  94. on 26 Sep 2010 at 12:01 amrobert

    Marc
    If you wanted to be totally honest you would show the same word used for Lord in luke 10;1 is the same word used in these 3 verses translated master and centainly not refering to GOD OR JESUS

    Luk 12:47
    That 1 servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or do what his master asked 2 will receive a severe beating.

    (0.50) Luk 16:5
    So 1 he contacted 2 his master’s debtors one by one. He asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’

    Joh 13:16
    I tell you the solemn truth, 1 the slave 2 is not greater than his master, nor is the one who is sent as a messenger 3 greater than the one who sent him.

  95. on 26 Sep 2010 at 4:18 amMarc Taylor

    The words eklegomai and anadeiknumi point to the fact that Luke meant the Lord Jesus is recipient of prayer in Acts 1:24 and thus the “heartknower” of all – which necessitates His omniscience (God).

  96. on 26 Sep 2010 at 9:27 amRay

    Marc,

    Please explain in laymen’s terms how it is that eklegomai and anadeiknumi can in no way allow for those who prayed to be praying either to God or Jesus without specifying which, if indeed they do.

    I have no idea where those words are used in the scripture, nor the meaning of them. They are to me as sounding brass or a tinkling symbol.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if I was to look up the meaning of those words which appear to me to be greek, that I would find no such specification as you imply, and that a man could make the case well that those who were praying could have been praying to either God or Jesus, and that Luke was not saying he knew for sure which one each of the men praying were specifically addressing.

    Luke says “They prayed and said, Thou, Lord which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou has chosen,..”

    Luke reports that the men prayed and what they said. Are you suggesting that if any man of the group prayed those words along with the rest of the group, that such a one could have no no possible way have been addressing the Father?

    This seems to me to be what you are attempting to prove. If so,
    please proceed using the evidence of the words you suggest.

  97. on 26 Sep 2010 at 10:02 amFrank D

    I still find it very interesting that the trinity is not clearly stated in the word and as a result there is a piecing together of verses and definitions and opinions to stand upon. Someone is refered to as Lord and knowing the hearts of all men in Acts 1:24. Marc calls Jesus God because he claims Jesus is omniscience. Jesus says in Mark 13:32 only the Father knows the hour of the Messiah’s return and the son does not. Marc calls Jesus God anyway. It is using vague verses to make a statement of omniscience and the clear verse is explained away as a dual nature of Jesus. Wave your hands and quote whomever you like. It is a double standard and dare I say, double minded.

  98. on 26 Sep 2010 at 10:54 amRay

    I was led to these verses:

    John 14:13
    John 15:16
    John 16:23

    I consider it a possibility that those praying in Acts 1:24 were doing that. I don’t think it wise to try to prove otherwise as if they could not have been praying according to the above verses, for what would be the purpose of doing such a thing?

    From what I can see, I don’t think I would want to try to prove the men were praying to only God, or to only Jesus.

    I’ve heard people pray and sometimes I can tell who they are praying to and sometimes I can’t.

    Acts 1:24 is one of those times when I don’t know which the men prayed to for sure, God the Father, or Jesus, and it’s not a matter of great importance to me.

  99. on 26 Sep 2010 at 5:50 pmMarc Taylor

    Ray,
    The fact tha kurios is used with these words that are associated with Christ elsewhere by the very same author (and never to the Father) is enough proof that “Lord” in this passage is in reference to Christ.
    eklegomai is also used in Acts 1:2 in reference to Christ – the same would hold true concerning Luke 6:13.
    anadeiknumi is used only one other time in the NT and that by Luke – and once again in reference to Christ (Luke 10:1).

    Please supply the evidence that they were addressing the Father.
    —————-
    Frank,
    In reference to Mark 13:32 please explain how Christ has a name that “no one” knows (Revelation 19:12).

  100. on 26 Sep 2010 at 6:38 pmrobert

    “anadeiknumi is used only one other time in the NT and that by Luke – and once again in reference to Christ (Luke 10:1).”

    Marc
    Can you explain the impossibilty of these 2 words (anadeixon 1, anedeixen 1) being translated the same in these 2 verses.

    I can,its a scribal error and should be this greek word

    Results 1 – 1 of 1 for greek_strict_index:

    deiknumi means show

    1Co 12:31
    But you should be eager for the greater gifts. And now I will SHOW you a way that is beyond comparison.

    Funny thing the translators were able to use common sense to translate this properly

  101. on 26 Sep 2010 at 7:34 pmMarc Taylor

    Robert,
    1. Scribal error? Evidence please.

    2. You ignored eklegomai…in typical fashion.

    3. The word ministry (diakonia) is also used in the prayer (cf. Acts 1:25). You can now go ahead and tell us who the “Lord” is that Paul received his “ministry” from as recorded in Acts 20:24.

  102. on 26 Sep 2010 at 7:36 pmDanny Dixon

    What is it now that makes the resurrected glorified-again Jesus have a God?hat

    Marc says that it is because Jesus is a man forever that he has a God NOW. Wouldn’t it be easier just to say, “The man part of the God-man Jesus has a God. The God part doesn’t”? I think the doctrine of the hypostatic union is ad hoc.

    The best thing about a written debate, all things considered, is that people can re-read it, prayerfully, and hopefully be able to see clearly with the help of God’ spirit.

  103. on 26 Sep 2010 at 7:37 pmrobert

    Marc you can see that these 2 words were not separated properly which is a minor mistake considering the are no breaks between words in greek, but if you separate them it makes perfect sense. It should read like this and totally blows your theory out of the water

    And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, (BETWEEN,AMONG ) shew() whether of these two thou hast chosen

    GREEK kai

    CONJ

    proseuxamenoi
    (5666)
    V-ADP-NP

    Meipan
    (5627)
    V-2AAI-3

    Psu

    P-2Ns

    kurie

    N-VSM

    kardiognwsta

    N-VSM

    pantwn

    A-GPM

    ana

    Definition: 1) into the midst, in the midst, amidst, among, between

    deixon

    from the root word deiknuo
    Definition: 1) to show, expose to the eyes
    2) metaph.
    2a) to give evidence or proof of a thing
    2b) to show by words or teach

    on

    R-ASM

    exelexw
    (5668)
    V-AMI-2S

    ek

    PREP

    toutwn

    D-GPM

    twn

    T-GPM

    duo

    A-NUI

    ena

    A-ASM

  104. on 26 Sep 2010 at 7:39 pmMarc Taylor

    Danny,
    Scripture delcates it. Now whether you want to submit your so-called intellect to it is another story.
    —–
    Robert,
    That is rubbish. You keep ignoring my arguments.

  105. on 26 Sep 2010 at 7:40 pmRay

    Marc,

    I don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about in 99.

    No doubt that Acts 1:24 may apply to Jesus just as so many scripture verses that speak of God also apply to him.

    Is it your defense that the men could not have been praying to God the Father, the prayer of Acts 1:24?

  106. on 26 Sep 2010 at 7:43 pmMarc Taylor

    I am saying the evidence that Christ is being prayed to in Acts 1:24, 25 is overwhelming. He thus is the heartknower which means He is omniscient – and that means God – despite Danny’s made up definitions.

  107. on 26 Sep 2010 at 7:51 pmRay

    Marc,
    In your opinion would it be wrong for men to pray to God the Father about such a thing they were doing as we read about in
    the later part of Acts 1?

    It seems to me that you keep trying to prove they prayed to the Lord Jesus but provide no proof.

    That Paul received his ministry directly from the Lord Jesus in not proof that the men prayed to Jesus in Acts 1:24. That should be clear to even a babe in Christ.

    I don’t know how a man could prove one way or another who it is that the men prayed to as to whether it was God the Father or the Lord Jesus, yet we seem to find some men willing to keep trying.

    Do you have anything else at this time that you wish to prove?

  108. on 26 Sep 2010 at 8:02 pmrobert

    Marc
    Your far fetched claim that makes no sense to start with just became a literal impossibility no matter how you twist it.
    Throw some more out!

  109. on 26 Sep 2010 at 8:02 pmMarc Taylor

    Ray,
    I provide no proof?
    No, you just don’t want to accept the proof because heartknower (kardiognwstes) refers to an omnisicent Being (God). Thus you and everyone else who denies Christ is God would have to admit your error as to who He really is……but pride prevents that from happening.

    Enough said here.

  110. on 26 Sep 2010 at 8:11 pmRay

    Marc,

    That you see scripture evidence which no man can dispute that shows that Jesus is prayed to and that his knowledge is not limited by any means of men, this has no bearing on the fact that it is impossible to prove if the men prayed to God the Father or to the Lord Jesus in Acts 1:24.

    Here’s how it works Marc, Can you accept as doctine that they prayed to God the Father in Acts 1:24, if a man try to prove it by showing you as evidence, how many prayers are prayed to God the Father as compared to how many in scripture are prayed to Jesus?

    My position is that no man can use scripture one way or the other to prove who the men prayed to in Acts 1:24. Do you think such a position to be fair and if not, and if not, please tell us why not.

  111. on 26 Sep 2010 at 8:37 pmrobert

    1. Scribal error? Evidence please.

    Marc i proved that in post 103 showing you that ana(303) meaning between or among and deixon (1166) meaning show were just not separated when translated which makes it understandable how they can not be interchanged in the verses you say are connected.
    Acts is translated SHOW and Luke is translated APPOINT which makes sense in both verses

    2. You ignored eklegomai…in typical fashion.

    No just know its Yahweh that knows the hearts of men and reveals that to whoever he wishes whenever he wishes

    3. The word ministry (diakonia) is also used in the prayer (cf. Acts 1:25). You can now go ahead and tell us who the “Lord” is that Paul received his “ministry” from as recorded in Acts 20:24.

    All things are giving by Yahweh but sometimes delivered by messengers like Jesus in the case of Paul.

  112. on 26 Sep 2010 at 8:52 pmMarc Taylor

    Ray,
    The Lord Jesus is called the Son of Man about 90 times in the Bible while he is referred to as the Son of David about 16 times. Do the 90 times cancel out the 16 times so that Christ is not really the Son of David? No.
    Psalm 119:160 says the sum of God’s word is truth. Don’t pit Scripture against Scripture.
    I have supplied plenty of evidence using anadeiknumi, eklegomai and diakonia that all point th eLord Jesus being the “Lord” in Acts 1:24.
    Here’s one more:
    Apostleshp (cf. Acts 1:25)
    I am able to cite two passages where “apostleship” is specifically used in reference to the the Lord Jesus (Romans 1:5 and 1 Corinthians 9:2). Can you cite a passage that clearly indicates otherwise.

  113. on 26 Sep 2010 at 9:35 pmRay

    Marc,
    You say a man should not pit scripture agaisnt scripture and I agree that scripture does not go contrary to scripture as a rule.

    Therefore why is it that you refuse to see that a man can show many reasons why the men praying could have been praying to God the Father as something you are not willing to receive?

    Is it scripture that prevents you from seeing that the men who prayed the prayer of Acts 1:24 could have indeed been praying to God the Father?

    If so which scripture verse is it? We can look at each one at a time and apply the test of scripture to see if indeed they do prevent one from believing that the men may have been praying to God the Father as they prayed the prayer of Acts 1:24.

    Is it any of the 90 scriptures you speak of that you say that calls Jesus the Son of man, and if so, which one? Is it all of the ninety and if so, why? Or, is it the 16 times Jesus is called the son of David you tell of? Which one of the 16 would say that the men who prayed the prayer of Acts 1:24 could not have been praying to God the Father? Is it all of them in your opinion? I don’t see a one that would say such a thing or even lead a man to think of such a thing.

    Or, is it Psalm 119:60 that you speak of? Is that the one that prevents you from seeing that the men who prayed the prayer of Acts 1:24 may have prayed to God the Father? If so, how? Please explain this to us.

    Please tell us again how the words anadeiknumi, eklegomai, and diakonia prevent you from seeing that the men who prayed the prayer of Acts 1:24 could not have been praying to God the Father?

    And here’s one more, how is it that two or more verses that speak of apostleship, specifcally refering to the Lord Jesus, (if indeed they do, for I say so because I haven’t looked them up and therefore right now don’t know what they say) would cause you to believe that the men who prayed the prayer of Acts 1:24 could in no way have been praying to God the Father?

    Though they could have been praying to the Lord Jesus, isn’t it possible that some could have been praying to God the Father insead? If not, why not? It seems to me that the men may have been praying to the Lord Jesus as well as to God the Father, for it seems to me that when men pray together, only the knower of the hearts would know such a thing.

    I do not believe the scripture proves the men who prayed the prayer of Acts 1:24 prayed to Jesus and not to God the Father, nor do I believe the scripture proves they prayed to God the Father but not to Jesus. Do you think a man to be unfair to say so, and if so, why? What is your proof? What is your real evidence?

    It seems to me that only the one who knows the hearts of men knows, and the rest of us should not try to prove it one way or the other as that information isn’t clearly revealed by the scripture itself.

    Is that fair and if not, why not?

  114. on 26 Sep 2010 at 9:35 pmrobert

    1 Corinthians 1:1
    Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

    Marc as you see in above verse it was by the will of God Paul was called to be an apostle not the will of Jesus

    And in the verse below that Jesus was a chosen apostle himself

    Hebrews 3:1
    Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

    You case weaken by the day

  115. on 26 Sep 2010 at 9:50 pmRay

    It seems to me that Paul was called to be an apostle by both the will of God and by Jesus Christ.

  116. on 26 Sep 2010 at 10:15 pmMarc Taylor

    Robert,
    What can’t you see? I have supplied evidence from the words used within the prayer that it is to the Lord Jesus.
    What evidence that you have that this prayer is to the Father?

  117. on 26 Sep 2010 at 10:28 pmrobert

    Marc
    I have the whole bible as evidence,the words of Yahshua, Nowhere does it state to pray to Yahshua but to ask Yahweh in his name. So unless you can provide some honest evidence meaning absolutely clear then dont preach my way without expecting to be corrected.

  118. on 26 Sep 2010 at 11:57 pmRay

    It certainly looks to me like the writer of Acts (whom it seems to me to be Luke) well reported the prayer of the apostles which they prayed (see Acts 1:24,25) and left it up to the reader to decide if they prayed to God the Father or to the Lord Jesus, or to both at the same time, and that we can trust that he that knows the hearts of all men knows more about it than any of us, even more than Luke himself.

    I for one would not want to try to make the case as to whether it was the Father they prayed to, or Jesus, or both, in any specific terms, but think it wise to let the reader decide for himself, thereby letting the judge of the hearts of men be their judge and saviour by Jesus Christ.

    And I think this is according to the mind of Christ. My case will rest and it will be judged by him.

  119. on 27 Sep 2010 at 1:24 amMarc Taylor

    Robert,
    It doesn’t have to state to pray to Jesus for we know it is proper to do so because those in Acts 1 did. I have cited plenty of evidence for anyone coming to Acts 1:24, 25 to conclude that it is to the Lord Jesus Christ.
    Furthermore, Christ can be the proper recipient of prayer based on several other passages as well (Acts 7:59, 60; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 12:8, etc.). Indeed, He is the recipient of several doxologies (hymns of praise to God) in such passages as 2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18 and Revelation 1:6.

  120. on 27 Sep 2010 at 6:49 amDavid

    I still don’t see how prayer to Yeshua or his omnipotence (because of his authority given to him by the Father) has anything to do with anything. Perhaps this is because of my panentheistic view of our Father.

    Firstly this is because YHVH is exalted above all of creation, back to a supreme state that is impossible to be equaled by any being. There is no way a drop of water (human) no matter how perfect (Jesus/Yeshua) could ever equate to the Ocean (The Father).

    Given this view, the belief in the divinity or non-divinity of Jesus becomes completely irrelevant, as any possible concept of a “Triune Godhead” becomes completely dissolved. Although Jesus’ perfect obedience to God and His will makes him “one” with the Father, we too are members of the same being. One’s favored Christology becomes moot point at best as God is re-exalted to His rightful status of as infinitely greater, and all-inclusive; all of creation within His being, much like cells or members of a body (Or like a branches or leaves of a tree) God is still a complex unity, but he is still one. This beautiful unity also best illustrates the said “likeness” of the two commandments (Matthew 22:36-40 ), showing that they are not only similar, but practically identical.

    This view of God has direct biblical passage support in both OT and NT of both implicit and explicit nature (Eph. 4.6, Col. 1-15-17, 2 Chr. 2:6, Ps. 19.1-2, Ps. 139.7-10, Jer. 23.24, Acts 17.28, 1 Jn. 4.16). This transparency of scripture is something that the Trinity doctrine lacks.

    Not only is this view peace making and bridge-building between the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish faiths, it is also a worldview that is compatible with the rest of the major faiths on Earth. It extends an olive branch to the entire world! Because of this, God is one God, He is the Only God, and there cannot possibly exist another. He is still God, and he is still one being, with one personality.

    The theology is supported by Jewish rabbinic authority. (R. Cordozo, Israel ben Eliezer, Menahem Mendel). Rabbinic and Jewish literature have always proven indispensable in providing a great insights to the historical backdrop of Jesus’ time. In this matter it becomes paramount. Although the Church is he most qualified source of information regarding Christology, the Jews are the most qualified and reliable source when it comes to the nature of God. Not only did the Messiah come from the Jewish people, the Jews have 3000 more years under their belt when it comes to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

    I would urge people to think on this as this view creates a middle ground where reconciliation can be made between Trinitarian and Unitarian if both can give a little. It isn’t necessarily about re-evaluating our ideas about Jesus so much as it is about re-evaluating our understanding of God and His creation.

    The benefit to the Trinitarian is that they can choose to maintain any Christology they want. They may choose to keep a keep a Divine Jesus who is a part of God, who maintains himself as a complex unity. The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit stay united together.

    Unitarians get a God who is still one person, one being with one personality. A God who is infinitely supreme compared to Christ no-matter how you slice it. Jesus can in no way ever be equal to this God. God is back on the throne. Humankind is no longer “removed” from God, and also takes it’s place as within the tree of life, as disciples and subjects of Christ, and as brethren as well. Jesus is no longer removed from us existing in a triune Godhead separate from us. Each of us now have the ability to learn to be obedient to God and to also be one with God as Jesus was one with God. That is, after all, what being Christian is all about. It’s about being a disciple. And discipleship is about becoming just like one’s master.

    All of Christianity (and the world) can benefit because of the shared concept of the being of God with other major world religions, opening up friendly dialogue and lines of communication through which the gospel can be preached and more readily accepted. No longer would others need to be “on the defense” when talking to Christians about theology, as they will be coming from the same point of reference when it comes to the idea of God. No longer will we be comparing idols to idols and have religious wars. After all, there is only one God, and He happened to be the God of the all nations all this time… humanity just didn’t realize it until now. It’s not about becoming completely syncretic and turning into a melting pot of inter-faith ideals. It’s about finding common footing so that we can spread the gospel and open dialogue with the rest of the world.

    We have the Gospel Message of God’s Kingdom on Earth to spread, and while we are arguing about Christology we are missing the entire point. It’s a great distraction from the real work in all actuality. The spiritual battle that plagues the world is out there, and we’re in here arguing with each other. Reformation is an important and crucial step on the road to unifying the world under the banner of Jesus and the Father. However, I personally feel the battle between Unitarian and Trinitarian ideals will be best settled with a truce, such as I proposed above, or some other way. This is no black and white issue and some happy median will need to be arrived at lest this debate continue into perpetuity. Truces will have to be made all along the way, and allies will have to be made. I’ve chosen to forsake my hand-me-down ideals and instead seek the kingdom, to understand God’s will, and to actively further God’s plan for creation.

  121. on 27 Sep 2010 at 7:59 amrobert

    Marc
    We dont know just how our prayers are delivered to God but considering the word angel means messenger and there has been only a few instances where messengers have deivered messages from God and there are at least 100 million messengers as defined in Revelation 5 :11 it is very possible that are prayers are delivered by angels.
    So if you pray even to Jesus than maybe angels can still deliver that message but still we are not told anywhere to do this.
    My hope is these prayers are still delivered for the sake of the deceived

  122. on 27 Sep 2010 at 6:53 pmRay

    Marc,
    I don’t know those greek words you gave us in 112, but today I thought maybe one of those words was Koinoneo or something.
    I see that that word isn’t one of those in 112.

    But I do seem to recall a word I heard about from the greek and it’s meaning in English is “full sharing”.

    Apparently that is not one of those words in 112, though the idea of full sharing is a good idea. The word I was thinking of has the idea of not holding anything back from another, but it’s not about telling everything about political views, one’s favorite color, or whatever is not of interest at the time to the person one is communicating with.

    I would encourage you and all of us to do more full sharing in our communications.

    I hope I haven’t withheld any information from you which you would like to know from me in my communications with you, for if I do I might leave you feeling like all you got from me is something very far short of a happy meal. If I do things like that, I would be getting into some works of the flesh which are evident to those who are walking by the spirit of God.

  123. on 27 Sep 2010 at 7:55 pmMarc Taylor

    Thank you Ray.

  124. on 27 Oct 2013 at 12:22 pmDanny Andre' Dixon

    The following post impacts, somewhat, my comments to Marc Taylor regarding the use of Adoni as opposed to Adonai at Psalms 110:1: “YHWH said to ADN, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”

    Sir Anthony Buzzard and Dr. James White bantered about the significance of the vowel pointing of the Hebrew word ADN in a debate available at YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ckk3RE84XY). White made the following comment:

    “The difference between Adonai and Adoni was added hundreds of years after the New Testament was written . . . . The reality is that the very same Greek language that translates Adoni translates Adonai in Psalm 33:23 and Psalm 16:2 [s.v. here: “I said to the LORD, ‘You are my Lord; apart fro you I have no good thing'”; “Awake, and rise to my defense! Contend for me, My God and Lord” (Psalm 16:2; 35:23, NIV 1984)].” White continues, “Therefore when this comes into the New Testament from the Greek septuagbint, there is none of the distinction that you have so strongly emphasized” [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ckk3RE84XY Begin at 38 minutes 55 seconds into the video].

    I see that there needs to be some sort of strong response to the idea that when the Greek carried from the Septuagint over to the New Testament renders the Hebrew ADN as KURIOS MOU (“Lord of me” or “my Lord”) in Psalms 16:2; 33:32 and at Psalm 110:1, the Trinitarians ON THIS ARGUMENT, have a strong case to say “Who’s to know whether Psalm 110:1 would, at the time ALSO have read that Yahweh said to My Adonai, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. James White is arguing that the vowel pointing of ADN was added hundreds of years later by the Masoretes who had a vested interest in making sure that the second-mentioned “Lord” in Psalm 110:1 was NOT Adoni.

    It seems that, at the time of the debate, the only argument that Anthony gave as a follow up in the visual debate was that Psalms 16:2 and 33:23 are EXCEPTIONS to the 195 times that the text appears as Adoni in any number of examples that can be presented in the Hebrew text. I have differences with Anthony, to be sure, inasmuch as I hold to a more Arian perspective of Jesus’ existence (i.e. I hold that he, as the one called “The Word of God” (See John 1:1 and Revelation 19:13), preexisted his human advent), but I certainly am wanting to side WITH him on the idea that Psalm 110:1 does NOT have Yahweh speaking to Adonai, whom we all know is also Yahweh. We do acknowledge that the second “Lord” mentioned in Psalm 110:1 is, according to New Testament Revelation, Jesus the Messiah. If KURIOS MOU, “my Lord” should have been rendered as “my Adonai,” then we have a problem, and we darn well better resolve it or else concede the point. I am rather certain that Strong was probably making a mistake when he wrote in an earlier edition of the Hebrew Lexicon of his Concordance that the second Lord at Psalm 110:1 is Adonay (as he put it), because he was apparently using Masoretic-pointed texts, which at that point actually read as Adoni. So he POSSIBLY gets it right, however, by default as we consider, based on Psalm 110:1 that ADN could very well have been Adonai, the one to whom Yahweh was speaking.

    Again, we can’t just let this sit and no one make some sort of response to it. It is a strong and valid argument. To talk about it being an exception just won’t fly. Any number of doctrinal points can be made on a paucity of verses that do not make a doctrine any less true.

    If Marc Taylor had brought this up when we had our debate. I would have conceded the point, although I would have then reemphasized an argument that I think I DID make in my First Unitarian Constructive presentation on page 13, point 3 and in my rebuttal on page 41 in my discussion of “Lord of Lords.” Marc never DID adequately deal with the fact that whatever sort of Lord Jesus was, he was MADE that by God. So I’ll stand by that conclusion.

  125. on 27 Oct 2013 at 5:15 pmSarah

    Hi Danny,

    Again, we can’t just let this sit and no one make some sort of response to it. It is a strong and valid argument. To talk about it being an exception just won’t fly. Any number of doctrinal points can be made on a paucity of verses that do not make a doctrine any less true.

    Are you familiar with Jaco van Zyl’s article in which he addressed those two exceptions in detail? I would be interested to hear your take on it.

    http://www.21stcr.org/multimedia-2011/1-pdf/jz-psalm_110_LXX.pdf

  126. on 27 Oct 2013 at 8:47 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Danny, why should not the two exceptions in Psalms be explained as exceptions?! They don’t disturb the rule.

    The rule is this: in 195 places adoni is non-Deity. In two places in the psalms you have the exceptional double address to the same one Person.

    The rule I propose is that when YHVH speaks to another person who is adoni, the adoni is kurios mou.

    YHVH speaking to ADONAI is blatant polytheism.

    The whole idea that the Massoretes were wrong is so odd! There is no evidence for this in variations in MSS.

    Anthony

    I understand you are an arian.

  127. on 27 Oct 2013 at 9:08 pmJas

    Anthony
    Danny makes an excellent point which actually removes the certainty for both trinitarians and unitarians.
    Btw neither reading makes one polytheistic or monotheistic.
    The Most High can delegate another being LORD and can even allow complete agency including the Name.

  128. on 27 Oct 2013 at 10:28 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    For it to be ‘adonai’, do you not still have to explain the subordination? Second ‘lord’ sits while first ‘Lord’ does all the work? How is that co-equal?

    Danny’s Arian view may not have such an issue with that but the Trinitarian has to invent the functional subordination doctrine to explain it.

  129. on 27 Oct 2013 at 10:44 pmJas

    Tim
    Why ?
    Who says the have to be co-equal.
    Can not through agency Mose be face to face with the Most High yet A few verses later it says “You cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live.” Does this allow for a lessor being in the name and authority as agent of even the name or title. Moses wrote this so does that make him polytheistic or henotheistic which is the believe in one creator God with many created lessor Gods who serve as agents and messengers as #2 to the Most High.

  130. on 28 Oct 2013 at 1:24 amTim (aka Antioch)

    A Trinitarian believes they are co-equal. That is my point, they have to maintain that the second lord is co-equal and co-eternal despite the obvious subordination of the second lord to the first.

  131. on 28 Oct 2013 at 8:48 amJas

    Tim
    I thought we were discussing Danny’ s post where if this verse was really provable as Anthony claims it would be profitable to his belief.
    Refreshing honesty .

  

Leave a Reply