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This Site Is No Longer Active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.


  

Installment #5 in my “Common Sense” series.

 

Biblical Common Sense – Jesus – The Messiah is suppose to be…

Then there’s the Biblical expectations regarding the Messiah. The Hebrew people have historically viewed (as Judaism still does to this day) the Messiah as someone that would be a real human being directly descended from the lineage of King David. And they have this view point because that is just what Scripture clearly describes – a real human man was promised, not God acting as a man.

The “Original” Testament starts such a path almost from the beginning with God giving a prophecy that one day a literal descendant of Eve would defeat the Serpent (Satan) in Genesis 3:15.

Gen 3:15 – “And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

Later in Deuteronomy 18:15 & 18, God promises to bring up a future prophet like Moses from among the people of Israel’s own “brethren”.

Deut 18:15-19 “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. This is according to all that you asked of the LORD your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.’ “The LORD said to me, ‘They have spoken well. ‘I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. ‘It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him.

Isaiah 11 promises the Messiah will come out of the human line of Jesse and that God’s Spirit “will rest on him”.

Isaiah 11:1-2 “Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, And a branch from his roots will bear fruit. The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and strength, The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.”

Isaiah 42:1 describes the Messiah as God’s “servant” His “chosen one” whom God places (anoints) his Spirit upon.

Isaiah 42:1 “Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations. ”

Isaiah 52:14 again states that God’s servant will be a man.

Isaiah 52:14 “He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. ”

In the book of Jeremiah the Messiah is declared to be “raised up” as David’s “righteous branch” (23:5)

Jer. 23:5 “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD, “When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land.”

And that this “leader shall be one of them and their ruler shall come forth from their midst” (30:21).

Jer. 30:21 “Their leader shall be one of them, And their ruler shall come forth from their midst; And I will bring him near and he shall approach Me; For who would dare to risk his life to approach Me?’ declares the LORD.”

Of course it couldn’t be said any clearer than in 1st Chronicles 17:11-14, where God promises that the Messiah will be one of David’s “descendants” and “shall be of your sons”.

1 Chron 17:11-14 “When your days are fulfilled that you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up one of your descendants after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. “He shall build for Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. “I will be his father and he shall be My son; and I will not take My lovingkindness away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. “But I will settle him in My house and in My kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever.”

Then we have the Messianic promises that David himself wrote in the book of Psalms. Starting in Psalm 2 saying that God’s anointed will be “begotten” at a point in time (2:7) and will be established from David’s “seed forever” (89:4).

Psalm 2:7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.”

Psalm 89:4 “I will establish your seed forever And build up your throne to all generations.” Selah.”

Psalm 89:27 has God making the Messiah “My first-born”. This doesn’t make sense if Jesus were God, how would God make himself his own first-born?

Psalm 89:27 “I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth.”

And finally we come to Psalm 110. Here all doubts are erased and the precise declaration is provided that God’s anointed Messiah would be a human man and absolutely not God himself. Psalm 110:1 is THE verse in the Original Testament that shows the clear distinction between God and the Messiah.

Psalm 110:1 “The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.””

It shows that there are TWO Lords. One is the LORD God Almighty and the other is addressed with the honored but fully human title of Lord. No wonder it is the most quoted verse in the New Testament from the Hebrew Bible! To explain further, I’ll quote Anthony Buzzard as he says this better than I ever could.

“It tells us that the relationship between God and Jesus is that of Deity and non-Deity. The Messiah is called adoni (my lord) and in every one of its 195 occurrences adoni (my lord) means a superior who is not God. Adonai on the other hand refers exclusively to the One God in all of its 449 occurrences. Adonai is the title of Deity and adoni never designates Deity. If the Messiah were called Adonai this would introduce “two Gods” into the Bible and would be polytheism. Psalm 110:1 should guard us all against supposing that there are two who are God. In fact the Messiah is the supreme human being and agent of the One God. Psalm 110:1 is the Bible’s master text for defining the Son of God in relation to the One God, his Father.” (Sir Anthony Buzzard – Focus on the Kingdom – article “Adonai and Adoni (Psalm 110:1)”)

Again here is where common sense should keep us straight.  Scripture promised a real, human man that would be a literal descendent of Eve, a literal descendent of David, a great human prophet “like Moses”. If this is what was promised by God, then this is what it had to be.  Anything else would be deceptive.  To have this be a divine member of the Godhead, or God appearing in human form, makes all these written promises from God not really mean what they say.  A pre-existent, unbegotten being just isn’t human.  And such a being is not an actual descendent of anyone since by definition that being would have existed BEFORE they ever did.

Biblical Common Sense series:

1. Intro

2. Jesus – God’s Son

3. Jesus – “This is MY Son”

4. Jesus – The Anointed of God

5. Jesus – The Messiah is suppose to be…

6. Jesus – Jesus Was Seen!

7. Jesus – Two Adams

8. Jesus – Not Equal, Not the Same!

63 Responses to “Biblical Common Sense – Jesus – The Messiah is suppose to be…”

  1. on 08 Jul 2011 at 4:04 pmDoubting Thomas

    Ron S.
    That was another great series of articles. I didn’t realize there were so many O.T. statements that clearly state that the Messiah would be human. The evidence is indeed overwhelming the way you presented it. I especially liked the way you ended the series of articles with;

    “To have this be a divine member of the Godhead, or God appearing in human form, makes all these written promises from God not really mean what they say. A pre-existent, unbegotten being just isn’t human. And such a being is not an actual descendent of anyone since by definition that being would have existed BEFORE they ever did.”

    I found it most convincing. I hope you and everyone else have a great weekend. God Bless…

  2. on 08 Jul 2011 at 8:26 pmRon S.

    Thanks DT. I’m glad your enjoying them. I hope others will too.

    But this doesn’t end the “Jesus” section of my “Common Sense” series. There’s three more yet to come.

    After that I’ll post a Common Sense series on Death and The Devil.

  3. on 09 Jul 2011 at 12:31 amDoubting Thomas

    Ron S.
    Sorry that I misunderstood and thought this was the last of the series. I’m actually very glad to hear that there will be 3 more to come. I will certainly be looking forward to reading them… 🙂

  4. on 19 Aug 2011 at 7:57 pmChristian Jew

    I believe The Lord Jesus Christ is God, The Son of God, and The Messiah; as clearly taught in The Bible. The stakes are too high to be wrong about this.

  5. on 30 Nov 2011 at 8:41 pmMarc Taylor

    Psalm 119:60 reads:

    The sum of Thy word is truth.

    There are passages that teach the Lord Jesus is a man while the Bible also teaches that He is God.

  6. on 30 Nov 2011 at 11:03 pmSarah

    There are passages that teach the Lord Jesus is a man while the Bible also teaches that He is God.

    After Jesus was resurrected and ascended to heaven, all mystery regarding his identity was fully unveiled. Why then did the apostles call him the “Last Adam” (1 Cr 15:45), and a “man accredited by God” (Acts 2:22)?

  7. on 30 Nov 2011 at 11:04 pmSarah

    The first sentence should be in quotes, as it is a copy of post #5. My fault.

  8. on 30 Nov 2011 at 11:49 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    Marc,

    Is accepting Jesus’ deity a requirement for salvation? If so, what verses do you use to support that?

  9. on 01 Dec 2011 at 12:44 amMarc Taylor

    Sarah,
    Because He is a man.
    Don’t cut out though the passages that teach He is God.
    ——-
    Yes Sara, if one does not accept Christ’s deity they are eternally lost.

    1 Corinthians 1:2 teaches that a Christian is one who calls upon (meaning prays to/worships) the Lord Jesus.

    That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him (John 5:23)

    One can not honour Him without worshipping Him. Those Unitarians who insist that Christ is never to be prayed toworshiped are not honoring Him as the Father is to be honoured.
    And those who do worship Him but deny that He is God are in error for only an omniscient Being can here all the prayers being offered to Him and only and omnipotent Being can faithfully act upon such prayers.

  10. on 01 Dec 2011 at 12:45 amMarc Taylor

    Sorry I mean “Tim” in my previous post (second part).

  11. on 01 Dec 2011 at 12:42 pmSarah

    Marc, you’re conveniently sidestepping the question.

    In Acts 2, Peter’s sermon distinguished Jesus from God and indicated Jesus was subordinate to God. Peter also clearly called Jesus a man, but did not call him God. Many of the Israelites who heard this sermon were saved.

    Why didn’t Peter explain that even though it sounded like he was saying Jesus is a God-appointed man, in truth, Jesus is also God himself? And why didn’t Peter say that even though it sounded like he was telling them that Jesus is subordinate to God, in truth, Jesus is co-equal to the Father in every way?

    This sermon occurred after the resurrection, the ascension, and pentecost. If there was ever a place to explain the trinity, it would be here. But that simply doesn’t happen. And it seems to me that the trinitarian view refuses to deal with this issue honestly.

  12. on 01 Dec 2011 at 6:19 pmMarc Taylor

    Sarah,
    Peter distinguished Jesus from the Father. Theos primarily (although not exclusively) refers to the Father.
    Peter rendered a doxology unto the Lord Jesus (cf. 2 Peter 3:18). A doxology is a hymn of praise (prayer) to God. And just earlier Peter prayed to the Lord Jesus calling Him the kardiognwstes (heart-knower) of all (Acts 1:24). This word means the same thing as omniscient. And an omnisicent Being is by definition “God”.
    Don’t confuse functional subordination with ontological inferiority. One does not always have to necessitate the other.

  13. on 02 Dec 2011 at 3:26 pmSarah

    Peter distinguished Jesus from the Father. Theos primarily (although not exclusively) refers to the Father.

    You’re playing semantics. Father, “pater”, is a descriptive term that can be applied to God, “theos”. My argument stands: Peter distinguished Jesus from “theos”, with no indication that they were the same being. He gave them no explanation of “functional subordination” versus “ontological equality”.

    When Peter explained Jesus’ true identity to the very ones who handed him over to be crucified (Acts 2:23), he made the case that Christ was indeed the Messiah and has now been glorified by God. Peter’s listeners repented and accepted Christ as God’s Messiah. Completely absent from Peter’s sermon is any sort of argument for the trinity.

    Jesus calling Him the kardiognwstes (heart-knower) of all (Acts 1:24). This word means the same thing as omniscient. And an omnisicent Being is by definition “God”.

    We’ve already had this discussion. Your understanding of kardiognwstes is highly debatable because omniscience is not the given lexical definition of the word. Scripture has been produced in another thread showing that believers in full maturity will posses the ability to discern the heart via the Holy Spirit, as several of the apostles demonstrated after pentecost. This is part of our participation in the fullness of Christ’s nature. So, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on kardiognwstes.

  14. on 02 Dec 2011 at 7:05 pmMarc Taylor

    Sarah,
    I am not playing semantics. You just won’t accept the fact that Theos primarily refers to the Father.
    My understanding of kardiognwstes is highly debatle? All sources that were cited were in support of my position. That means Sarah not one source that was cited contradicted my position.

    100% to 0%

    I’ll stick with the 100% while the Unitarians can bases their assertions on zero.

  15. on 03 Dec 2011 at 10:44 pmSarah

    Marc,

    Theos and pater are often distinguished in the same verse. He is both the God and the Father of our Lord Jesus.

    2Cr 1:3 Blessed be the God [theos] and Father [pater] of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort

  16. on 04 Dec 2011 at 1:42 amMarc Taylor

    Sarah,
    Often doesn’t mean always.

    Do you have any citations of any sources whatsoever that kardiognwstes does not mean omniscient. I have previously (in another thread) cited several citations that kardiognwstes means omniscient.

  17. on 04 Dec 2011 at 12:30 pmSarah

    kardiognostes – Strongs #G2589: “which knows the hearts”. On this we agree.

    However, your commentary citations inferentially expand this definition to mean omniscience. God, as the omniscient one, certainly knows the hearts of men. But that doesn’t mean omniscience is one-for-one equivalent with knowing the hearts of men. A great deal of knowledge exists outside the realm of the hearts of men.

    These commentaries you’ve cited refuse to deal honestly with the fact that Jesus didn’t know the date of his return, among other things. The idea of shuffling omnisicence around within the multi-personal being of God is an unbiblical theory and is utterly illogical.

    I would also like them to explain how the apostles discerned people’s hearts after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, if knowing hearts is tantamount to omniscience. If we as believers will possess the fullness of Christ’s nature one day, will we too become omniscient?

  18. on 04 Dec 2011 at 12:55 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    I have also previously stated (in another thread) that the word kardiognwstes (heart knower) cannot logically be synonymous with the word omniscient (knower of everything). The first word implies that the person has a limited knowledge (knower of hearts). The second word implies that the person has a unlimited knowledge (knower of everything). The words are not interchangeable because they DO NOT mean the same thing.

    Does kardiognwstes (knower of hearts) imply that a person knows how many grains of sand there are in the Universe???

    Does it imply that a person knows how many asteroids there are in the Solar System???

    Does it mean that a person knows when the next major earthquake or tsunami will occur???

    Of course not!!! This is just plain common sense. A ten year old child could tell you that these words are not synonymous. However you continually ignore the logic of my argument, because according to you logic and common sense mean nothing. According to you all that matters is what the great (Almighty) Trinitarian scholars have wrote. According to you the opinion of these Trinitarian scholars are in reality an indisputable fact, and not just a biased opinion reflecting their own personal beliefs.

    The fact is that these Trinitarian scholars are human (just like you and me) and they have the same biases and prejudices that everyone else has. Because of their preconceptions, that include that Y’shua is in reality God (even though the bible says nothing of the sort), they scour the bible looking for anything that might reinforce these preconceptions. Then when they find something that might indirectly hint at Y’shua being God, they exaggerate it and claim that it is in reality an indisputable proof when it is in reality just an indirect hint and not a proof at all.

    The conclusion that “heart knower” means the same thing as “knower of everything” could only be reached by someone with a (not so hidden) agenda to prove. It is crystal clear, to anyone without this agenda to prove, that the words are not synonymous with each other. Sarah is quite correct when she says that this subject is very debatable, since the proofs you offer are all based on having certain preconceptions. Without these preconceptions your “so called” proofs would fall apart.

    I realize that I am never going to convince you, because logic means nothing to you. You have already made up your mind before even hearing the facts!!! I am not writing this for you, but for the benefit of anyone else that might come across this thread. I wouldn’t want to leave the impression that you have proved that kardiognwstes means the same things as omniscient when in fact you haven’t. All you have done is quoted the biased opinions of a few Trinitarian scholars…

  19. on 04 Dec 2011 at 6:37 pmMarc Taylor

    Sarah,
    And to know the hearts means omnisicient. Nothing you cited refutes that.
    And I cited dictionaries not commentaries.
    —————–
    DT,
    Paragraph #1: No citations given…just your opinion.
    Yes to know the hearts means that all the grains of sand are known (as well as the others you mentioned)….for if one is kardiognwstes that means they are omnisicient.
    To be able to knwo the deepest seat of all human thoughts, intentions defintely means omnisicent. A 5 year old could figure that out.
    I realize nothing will convince you because logic and the how words are properly defined mean nothing. Let’s start a belief system where we just make up all the defintions for words. This way any word that refutes our belief system we can change according to what we ALREADY believe. That is what Unitarians are reduced to doing.
    Nothing was cited that refutes the citations (yes, more than one) that I have supplied.
    Unitarian myths die hard.

  20. on 04 Dec 2011 at 7:03 pmMarc Taylor

    DT,

    http://lhim.org/blog/2010/01/16/from-trinitarian-to-unitarian/#comment-100205

    From post #94:

    DT,
    In post #61 you wrote:
    If Trinitarian scholars want to believe that kardiognwstess means the same thing as omnisicent, then that is their prerogative.
    ———————
    Well the Mormons are not Trinitarians……

    “I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods,” (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370).

    It might be said that the doctrine of the trinity is the very first of all doctrines in which Latter-day Saint teachings differ from the traditional Christian view.
    http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/2009/05/do-mormons-believe-in-the-trinity/

    ….but they believe that to know all about everyone’s heart means the same thing as omniscience.

    thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men, 2 Chr. 6:30 (Acts 1:24; Acts 15:8).
    http://lds.org/scriptures/tg/god-omniscience-of?lang=eng

    So much for another one of the Unitarian baseless opinions.
    —————-

    Still waiting fro your response to this………………

  21. on 04 Dec 2011 at 8:17 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    You said, “Let’s start a belief system where we just make up all the defintions for words. This way any word that refutes our belief system we can change according to what we ALREADY believe.”

    This is exactly what the Trinitarians have done with their Trinitarian lexicons and dictionaries!!!

    Where in the bible do you find the word “incarnate”???

    Where in the bible do you find the words “God incarnate”???

    Where in the bible do you find the words “3 in 1”???

    Where in the bible do you find the words “God in 3 persons”???

    Where in the bible do you find the words “dual nature”???

    Where in the bible do you find the words “eternally generated”???

    Where in the bible do you find the words “eternally begotten”???

    Where in the bible do you find the words “2nd. person of the Godhead”???

    Where in the bible do you find the words “3rd. person of the Godhead”???

    These things are found nowhere in God’s holy scriptures, but that doesn’t stop the Trinitarians. They just start up a belief system where they can not only make up all the definitions for words, but they can also make up nonsensical non-biblical words to prove what it is they ALREADY believe. It must be nice to just make up your own lexicons and dictionaries and fill them with your own definitions, and with your own non-biblical words and phrases that support those definitions…

  22. on 04 Dec 2011 at 9:34 pmMarc Taylor

    DT,
    Dodging again.
    I even cited a non-Trinitarian source that agrees with what I have been asserting about kardiognwstes.

    So much for Trinitarian collusion 🙂
    ———-
    After seeing the hatchet job done to kardiognwstes lets take a look at the Greek word proseuxomai.
    1. Louw/Nida: to speak to or to make requests of God – ‘to pray, to speak to God, to ask God for, prayer’ (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 33.178, Pray – euxomai; proseuxomai; euxee, proseuxee, page 409).
    2. Mounce: The fact that people pray to both God (Mt. 6:9) and Jesus (Acts 1:24) is part of the proof of Jesus’ deity (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, Pray, page 531).
    3. Thayer: defines it as “prayer addressed to God” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, proseuxee, page 545).
    4. Vine: concerning proseuxomai writes that it “is always used of prayer to God” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Pray, page 871) .

    The above are defintions for the Greek word for “prayed” in Acts 1:24. It means prayer to God. This word is used to describe the prayer to the Lord Jesus in Acts 1:24 thus the Lord Jesus is God.
    Get ready for the Unitarian response…..deny the definitions above.

  23. on 04 Dec 2011 at 11:19 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    I asked you 9 questions in my last post, and it is not the first time I asked you these questions either. As usual you just ignore my questions and try to change the subject to something else. Like I said in msg. #18 above, “I realize that I am never going to convince you, because logic means nothing to you. You have already made up your mind before even hearing the facts!!!”

    You are not the slightest bit interested in having a discussion that is based on logic and facts. All you have done since coming on this site is quote Trinitarian lexicons and Trinitarian dictionaries and then inform us that we have no choice but to accept what these Trinitarian lexicons and Trinitarian dictionaries are saying. What a bunch of hog wash!!! God gave me (and all of His children) the common sense to figure out when someone is misrepresenting the truth to them.

    That is worth more than all of the Trinitarian lexicons and dictionaries in the entire world…

  24. on 05 Dec 2011 at 12:23 amMarc Taylor

    DT,
    I already cited a non-Trinitarians source that claims that to be the heart-knower means that one is Omniscient.
    This is the typical game those who deny the Trinity do. Make baseless assertions but then when they are proven wrong they ignore the evidence and bring up other questions and passages without addressing the issue at hand. It is simply a guise to delay, dodge and ultimately ignore the evidence.
    It’s really pathetic.

  25. on 05 Dec 2011 at 1:34 amDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    I’ve asked you the same group of questions (see above) at least 3 times now in different threads. You have never made the slightest attempt to answer even one of these questions, and then you actually have the nerve to say the following to me;

    “It is simply a guise to delay, dodge and ultimately ignore the evidence. It’s really pathetic.”

    I’ve already logically proven my point about heart-knower to you, on more than one occasion. The problem is that you have no interest in having a logical discussion with anyone. Just above in msg. #19 you said, “Yes to know the hearts means that all the grains of sand are known (as well as the others you mentioned)” Your logic seems to be that since the Trinitarian scholars say that it means omniscient then so and so logically follows.

    This is called circular reasoning and anyone reading this will know that this statement by you is completely illogical and will also know that you are misrepresenting the truth.

    I know a dead horse when I see one, and I have no intention of beating it. I think it might be time for us to respectfully agree to disagree (for the second time). It is past my bedtime. I hope you have a good night and God Bless…

  26. on 05 Dec 2011 at 4:02 amMarc Taylor

    DT,
    Already anwered at elast one of them…..the answer is basically the same as the rest (pretty much).
    For example question 2 reads:

    Where in the bible do you find the words “God incarnate”???

    The Bible declares that the Lord Jesus was/is a man and the Bible also declares that he is prayed to. Thus He is also God.
    ————
    Yeah you proved your point about heart-knowere alright. Just your opinions. You then whined about Trinitarian scholars so I supplied evidence that even non-Trinitarians agree with me. And what did you do with that evidence?

    You ignored it…..of course.

  27. on 05 Dec 2011 at 4:13 amMarc Taylor

    In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3).

    This passage which speaks of Christ demonstrates His omniscience.

    a. EDNT: “treasures of wisdom and knowledge” appear alongside an analogous construction with ploutos (v. 2). They are hidden in Christ, i.e., he is the only place where all knowledge is to be found (2:151, thesauros – D. Zeller).
    b. Mounce: God is the only one who has all knowledge, and no one is able to teach him anything (Job 21:22; Isa. 40:14; Ps. 94:10; 139:6, 17-18). He is therefore the true source of all knowledge, a storehouse of wisdom and understanding to those who fear him (Isa. 33:6).
    Knowledge begins with God, and that knowledge contains deep riches (Rom. 11:33). Moreover, in Jesus, God’s Son, “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3) (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Knowledge, page 385).
    c. TDNT: Creation displays not only the omnipotence but also the wisdom and omniscience of God, Jer. 10:12 = 51:15; Ps. 104:24; Job 28:24-26; Prv. 3:19; 8:27 (3:1012, ktizw – Foerster).
    d. Vine: in Col. 2:3, of the wisdom and knowledge hidden in Christ (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Treasure, page 1164).

  28. on 05 Dec 2011 at 6:22 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    It is clear that you have made up your mind, and that your mind is closed to any new ideas. It is just plain common sense that “knower of hearts” means “knower of hearts” and that it doesn’t imply anything else beyond that. Anything beyond that is pure conjecture and speculation, and it doesn’t matter how many scholarly opinions you quote, it will still be pure conjecture and speculation.

    A scholarly opinion is just that, “an opinion”. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Like I said, “I know a dead horse when I see one…I think it might be time for us to respectfully agree to disagree (for the second time).”

    Peace and Grace…

  29. on 05 Dec 2011 at 7:55 pmMarc Taylor

    DT,
    Common sense when several dictionaries disagree with your assertion? No, that’s called nonsense.
    Not only that you ignored how proseuxomai is defined.

    Yeah I know you think they are opinions. Whate else can you offer? Nothing so the only thing to do is to attack/dismiss/ignore what words mean.
    This Humpty Dumpty approach to defining the biblical words is a disgrace.

  30. on 06 Dec 2011 at 12:15 amGreg

    Marc,

    You would agree with me that the Old Testament is the foundation of the New, right? In other words, it’s possible for the Old Testament to be true and the New Testament false, but it’s not possible for the New Testament to be true and the Old Testament false. You would also agree that it was God’s chosen people, Israel, that received the revelation and instructions of God, right?

    It follows, then, that we must first and foremost understand what the Old Testament had to say about the Messiah, and what the Jews have historically believed about the Messiah. Tell me, who does the Old Testament say the Messiah will be? God, or a special human being? Did the Jews, at any point in the past, or even presently, ever worship a three-person being? Or has their God always been a single “he”, the Father? Is the God of the Jews the same God that Jesus Christ worshipped?

    All this requires is a little bit of common sense and an honest appeal to the Old Testament — the only Bible that the earliest Christians had. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the one true God of the Bible, was the God that Jesus Christ worshipped. It’s obvious from the Old Testament testimony as well as the New Testament witness that Jesus wasn’t that God.

  31. on 06 Dec 2011 at 3:20 amMarc Taylor

    Greg,
    1. It is not possible that the NT is false.
    2. Yes, Israel did receive the revelation and instructions of God.
    3. The NT recveals more fully the things of God.
    4. Jacob worshiped the Messneger of YHWH in Genesis 48:16.
    5. It is obvious that the Lord Jesus wasn’t God?
    This is false.
    The NT teaches that Lord Jesus is properly prayed to/worshiped…and yes the NT is inspired…thereby proving that He is God.

  32. on 06 Dec 2011 at 4:33 amGreg

    Marc,

    1. To the Jews, it is quite possible that the New Testament is false (your claim otherwise simply illustrates your own bias).

    2. Glad you agree that Israel received the revelation of God, the most important of which was an understanding of who God was/is — the Lord our God, the Lord is one. The Jews never understood God to be more than one person, and this is evident in hundreds of places in the Old Testament; as well as in the New Testament in which the Father is identified with that one person God.

    3. The NT reveals nothing new about the nature of God. There is one God, the Father (John 17:3, I Cor. 8:6, I Tim. 2:5, and many others). There is no other God but this God.

    4. You demonstrate a lack of understanding of the Jewish law of agency. In Hebraic culture, the messenger is to be treated as the one who sends the messenger. Homage to a messenger of God is, by definition, homage to God. Jacob “worshipped” the messenger as a messenger of the one true God. You see, this misunderstanding by Western-mindset gentiles has led to the unfortunate, and tragic, misunderstanding that to worship Jesus means he is ontologically equal to God. The Jewish and Greek mindsets are totally different, and if you don’t understand the former you are going to end up in gross error.

    5. Yes, it is obvious that the Lord Jesus wasn’t/isn’t God. He’s the servant of God. He’s the Son of God. He’s the Messiah of God. He’s not God. What’s so hard about this? If I say John is the servant of the King, the Son of the King, etc., would you conclude that John = the King? No, of course not. But for some reason, Christians, in their over-zealous desire to elevate the Son of Man, make the mistake that Son of God/Servant of God means God. This is a blasphemous mistake.

  33. on 06 Dec 2011 at 4:43 amGreg

    To add one more thing. In mainstream Christianity, the Trinity is the official teaching. This states that there is one God existing in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus, the one true God is a being comprised of three persons. It is therefore perfectly acceptable to say that each person is the one true God. The Father is the one true God, the Son is the one true God, and the Holy Spirit is the one true God. As we know from Scripture, the one true God is known as the Most High God.

    But there is a slight problem here for Trinitarians. The Most High God worships no one. Anyone who bows down to and worships “the Most High God” is, by definition, not the Most High God. Yet…Jesus Christ has a God. He worships someone other than himself as the Most High God (the Father). Just see Revelation, it’s very clear. So, it logically follows that Jesus is not and cannot be the Most High God, and so the Trinity doctrine crumbles.

  34. on 06 Dec 2011 at 11:11 amSarah

    Marc,

    In post #30 you said “Jacob worshiped the Messneger of YHWH in Genesis 48:16.”

    Where do you see the hebrew word for worship in that verse?

  35. on 06 Dec 2011 at 6:39 pmMarc Taylor

    Greg,
    1. Is the NT inspired or not?
    2. You misunderstand agency. Jacob was already in the presence of God when He prayed to Him in Genesis 48:15. How can it be a case of agency when an agent is a substitute? Jacob already entered into God’s presence.
    3. Thanks for your opinion but the biblical words of the NT are defined differently.
    —–
    Sarah,
    What took place there is a “blessing” and blessing God is an act of worship. Should I cite a source for that or in typical Unitarian fashion will it to be denied?

  36. on 06 Dec 2011 at 7:45 pmDoubting Thomas

    Hey Greg!!! Nice to see you back on K.R…. 🙂

  37. on 06 Dec 2011 at 7:57 pmGreg

    Marc,

    1. Yes the NT is inspired.

    2. I understand agency perfectly well. It is the only thing that can adequately explain the fact that in Exodus God himself is reported to speak to Moses and the Israelites out of the burning bush but in the New Testament (see Acts 7 and Galatians) this being is reported to be an angel. The Jewish law of agency states that one’s agent is considered to be oneself. This blows the minds of Greek-oriented thinkers who want to make it an ontological issue when in Jewish thought it is clearly not. Jesus is God’s supreme agent, the one in whom God has most clearly and fully revealed himself. But Jesus is not that God whom he represents.

    3. You are ignoring the elephant in the living room. God Almighty, the Most High God, bows down to no one. He worships no one, because he is the Supreme being. However, Jesus had and has a God. Even in his glorified state, he has a God whom he worships. See Revelation for this. This proves conclusively that Jesus is not the Most High God, which he would have to be if the Trinity were true. You can’t deny this.

  38. on 06 Dec 2011 at 7:59 pmGreg

    Hello DT, your email prompted me to return. Good to be back. I’ll be responding to your email soon.

  39. on 06 Dec 2011 at 8:14 pmMarc Taylor

    1. There are words of the NT that mean omniscient and omnipotent that apply to the Lord Jesus thereby proving that He is God.
    2. I’ll post it again seeing that you ignored what I previously wrote concerning Genesis 48:
    You misunderstand agency. Jacob was already in the presence of God when He prayed to Him in Genesis 48:15. How can it be a case of agency when an agent is a substitute? Jacob already entered into God’s presence.
    3. I’ll post it again seeing that you ignored what I previoulsy wrote:
    Thanks for your opinion but the biblical words of the NT are defined differently.
    See #1 in this post as well.

  40. on 06 Dec 2011 at 8:18 pmGreg

    Marc,

    Let’s keep this simple, since you are ignoring my points. Does the Almighty God, the Most High God, have a God that he worships? A simple yes or no will do, and then we can move on from there.

  41. on 06 Dec 2011 at 8:29 pmMarc Taylor

    Greg,
    You ignored my points first.
    See post 9, 10 and 14 concerning prayers to the Lord Jesus and kardiognwstes – as well as in post 31 (see point #5).
    And I haven’t ignored your points. I specifically pointed out that it can not be a case of agency/substitution in Genesis 48:15, 16.

  42. on 06 Dec 2011 at 8:33 pmTim

    Marc,

    In #38 you are making a common fallacy of begging the question. If it is the case that there are words in the NT that mean omniscient and omnipotent that apply to the Lord Jesus, then that simply proves that the Lord Jesus is (to some extent) omniscient and omnipotent … only if you assume that the trinity is true can you conclude what you do. You are making this way too hard (like most trinitarians): there are three classes of beings here (not two as you assume): there is God Almighty, there is mankind, and there is the only begotten Son of God. There is no need to “bin” Jesus into the two categories of God and man – he is uniquely defined as the Son of God. He has some characteristics that are often applied to God and some that are only applied to man. Your answer to Greg will prove that he is not God Almighty.

  43. on 06 Dec 2011 at 8:41 pmMarc Taylor

    Tim,
    To some extent omnisicent and omnipotent?
    No, that is not how the Greek words ae defined. Please supply a source that means what you are asserting. It seems you are saying omnipotemnt and omniscient…but not really. Then even a slight denial would cancel out the use of those words.
    Let’s wait for Greg to deal with what I have written. I am nto going to get in long drawn out discussions with people if they deny what words really mean. I’ll just keep focusing on how words are properly defined. Otherwise we can just make up definitions for words willy-nilly as long as it suits our theological predilections.

  44. on 06 Dec 2011 at 8:44 pmGreg

    Marc,

    So is that a yes or a no? Does God Almighty, the Most High God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, have a God that he worships?

  45. on 06 Dec 2011 at 8:46 pmTim

    Marc,

    You missed my point. Your argument is circular and it is also presenting a false dichotomy. I will agree with whatever definitions you want. You argument will still be fallacious. This is not an uncommon response of a trinitarian, though … when faced with a logical fallacy, change the subject!

  46. on 06 Dec 2011 at 8:51 pmMarc Taylor

    Greg,
    See post #41.
    ——–
    Tim,
    I will agree with how dictionaries define words.
    And like Greg you too are dodging. Still waiting for your source that affirms omnipotent and omnisicent…but not really.

  47. on 06 Dec 2011 at 8:57 pmTim

    Marc,

    I said I will agree with whatever definitions you want. Your logic is still bad. You might want to check these out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning) before responding.

  48. on 06 Dec 2011 at 9:10 pmGreg

    Marc,

    Post #41 is from Tim. Did you mean post #40? Because if you did, I don’t see there an answer to the question I’ve posed — Does the Almighty God have a God that he worships?

  49. on 06 Dec 2011 at 9:13 pmTim

    Greg,

    I think that Marc is afraid of the implications of answering your question. Trust us Marc, it is not as bad as you think on this side of the debate … fear not!

  50. on 06 Dec 2011 at 9:14 pmMarc Taylor

    Tim,
    kardiognwstes is defined as being omniscient. Kardiognwstes is applied to Christ. Therefore Christ is omniscient.
    ————–
    Greg,
    Post #41 is from me to you.

  51. on 06 Dec 2011 at 9:23 pmTim

    Marc,

    Still missing the point … to conclude from what you said that Jesus is God is a logical fallacy. For the sake of argument, I will grant your point that Jesus is omniscient … still proves nothing other than Jesus is omniscient. Your premise that only God is omniscient does not hold. Obviously, both God and Jesus are omniscient from Biblical evidence. If you would answer Greg’s question we would be getting somewhere.

  52. on 06 Dec 2011 at 9:26 pmMarc Taylor

    No Tim, it is not a logical fallacy.
    Kardiognstes means omnisicent.
    Omniscient:the Omniscient God (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, page 1005, NY: Gramercy Books, c. 1996).

  53. on 06 Dec 2011 at 9:32 pmTim

    Marc,

    Logical fallacy does not mean that we disagree on the meaning of words. Omniscient means “all knowing” not “God,” (omnis from the Latin means “all”, sciens means “knowing”). Omniscience is a characteristic or property of something. Spend some time looking at the links I sent earlier and maybe we can have a more productive conversation.

  54. on 06 Dec 2011 at 9:37 pmMarc Taylor

    I already read what you wrote. It is not a false dilemma at all.

    You are denyting the meaning of how this word is properly defined.

    NounHumpty Dumptyism (uncountable)http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumptyism
    (idiomatic) The practice of insisting that a word means whatever one wishes it to.

    NIDNTT: Only God has infinite powers of knowledge and revelation (1:222, Blood – F. Laubach).

    “Only God” has this knowledge. The Lord Jesus has this knowledge. Therefore the Lord Jesus is God.

  55. on 06 Dec 2011 at 9:40 pmMarc Taylor

    See post #22 for how proseuxomai is defined.
    The Lord Jesus receives proseuxomai.
    Therefore the Lord Jesus is God.

    The Unitarians misguided approach in denying what the words of the Bible mean simply reveals their erroneous belief system.

  56. on 06 Dec 2011 at 10:23 pmSarah

    Guys, it’s become pretty clear to me that Marc is not debating us, he’s just baiting us. Someone constantly trying to push your buttons is not really interested in what you have to say.

  57. on 06 Dec 2011 at 10:24 pmGreg

    Marc,

    I see that you are going to continue to refuse to answer the simple question, Does the Almighty God have a God? I understand, though, why you won’t answer it. It’s because to answer it honestly would be to admit that the Trinity doctrine is false.

    It’s a simple syllogism, completely supported by the Scriptural evidence.

    1) The Almighty, Most High, God, does not have a God; he bows down to no one.

    2) Jesus Christ has a God that he bows down to and worships.

    3) Therefore, Jesus Christ is not the Almighty God, the Most High.

    You have chosen to focus on the issues of omniscience and whether or not Jesus is prayed to. That’s all fine, and those are valid issues to discuss. But all it takes to disprove the notion that Jesus is God is to demonstrate that he is not, cannot be, the Most High God. I have done that.

  58. on 06 Dec 2011 at 10:31 pmGreg

    Tim,

    I have seen this tactic time and again from Trinitarians. They simply refuse to come to terms with the fact that Jesus has a God and thus he cannot be God Almighty. Trinitarians accuse unitarians of denying the plain teachings of Scripture, but nothing is made more clear throughout the Bible than the fact that God is the absolute Sovereign master over all and bows down to no one. In addition, it is made very clear that Jesus Christ has a God that he worships. This is basic stuff. Any child can understand it. If you have a God, if you worship the Most High God, you cannot be that God. It’s as simple as that. But Trinitarians refuse to see it.

  59. on 06 Dec 2011 at 10:38 pmMarc Taylor

    Sarah,
    It’s very difficult to debate when the other side makes up defintions for the words of the Bible. One side quotes sopurces while the other embraces fantasy.
    —-
    Greg,
    Since you have such a difficult time “seeing” I’ll post this again:

    You ignored my points first.
    See post 9, 10 and 14 concerning prayers to the Lord Jesus and kardiognwstes – as well as in post 31 (see point #5).
    And I haven’t ignored your points. I specifically pointed out that it can not be a case of agency/substitution in Genesis 48:15, 16.

    I have seen this tactic over and over with those who deny the deity of Christ. I supply evidence, they ignore it (or have fantasy definitions for words) but then insist I respond to what they write.

    Nope. Won’t work. Unitarians need to figure out that a conversation is a two way – not a one way – street.

  60. on 06 Dec 2011 at 10:45 pmGreg

    1) Almighty God does not have a God he worships.

    2) Jesus Christ had/has a God he worships.

    3) Therefore, Jesus Christ is not God Almighty.

    It’s as simple as that. Ignore at your own peril.

  61. on 06 Dec 2011 at 10:48 pmMarc Taylor

    All done here.
    Perhaps I can find a place where Unitarians:
    1. Know how to have a dialogue. If I put forth evidence first they respond. They can then put forth evidence and then I will respond.
    2. Know how to quote proper sources for the definitions concerning the words of the Bible. Not going to happen anytime soon since the definitions of the Greek words overthrew their beliefs right from the start.

    Too bad for them in this confused belief system. Eternity will be a very unpleasant experience.

    Anyway, later “daze”.

  62. on 25 Nov 2012 at 9:44 amDT

    @Marc Taylor

    Said: “Perhaps I can find a place where Unitarians…Know how to have a dialogue…Eternity will be a very unpleasant experience”

    Maybe you are confusing them with you?

    ———————————————–

    Marc Taylor said:

    “NIDNTT: Only God has infinite powers of knowledge and revelation (1:222, Blood – F. Laubach).

    “Only God” has this knowledge. The Lord Jesus has this knowledge. Therefore the Lord Jesus is God.”

    Revelation 1:1, Acts 1:7-11, Matthew 24:36.

    According to your assertion, if it can be presented that the Lord Jesus does not possess this knowledge (infinite), then Jesus is therefore not God.

    According to the verses I have presented, the Lord Jesus does not possess this knowledge. Therefore, the Lord Jesus is not God.

    ———————————————–

    Marc Taylor said:

    “The above are defintions for the Greek word for “prayed” in Acts 1:24. It means prayer to God. This word is used to describe the prayer to the Lord Jesus in Acts 1:24 thus the Lord Jesus is God.”

    Let’s read Acts 1:24 –

    “And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen”

    Which “Lord” are they praying to? There are two Lords in the New Testament – the Lord God Almighty and the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Besides, it’s only Jehovah’s Witnesses who insist it is idolatrous to pray to Jesus. It is more than appropriate to pray to Jesus as mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5).

    ———————————————–

    Marc Taylor commented on the angel being worshipped in Genesis 48:16:

    Genesis 48:16 – the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys; and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.”

    Pay attention – not just the angel is being blessed.

    ———————————————–

    Marc Taylor asked “Is the NT inspired or not?”

    Not according to the New Testament.
    1. The NT wasn’t even around when Paul wrote 2 Tim.
    2. He was probably referring to the Septuagint OT.
    3. It depends entirely on translation.

    2 Timothy 3:16
    “Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.” (ASV)

    “Every holy Writing which comes from God is of profit for teaching, for training, for guiding, for education in righteousness:” (BBE)

    “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:” (RHE)

    “Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness,” (HNV)

    “Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness,” (WEB)

    “For all scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to chastise, [for] to learn in rightwiseness,” (WYC)

    ———————————————–

    Marc Taylor commented:

    “Yes Sara, if one does not accept Christ’s deity they are eternally lost.

    1 Corinthians 1:2 teaches that a Christian is one who calls upon (meaning prays to/worships) the Lord Jesus.

    That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him (John 5:23)

    One can not honour Him without worshipping Him. Those Unitarians who insist that Christ is never to be prayed toworshiped are not honoring Him as the Father is to be honoured.”

    First off, these verses do not state “if one does not accept Christ’s deity they are eternally lost”. This has to be read into scripture.

    Secondly, John 5:23 is not talking about honoring Christ as God’s equal or even because he is God. The whole context is talking about judgment. John 5:22 we learn the Father has comitted authority to judge to the Son and that therefore, we honor the Son as we honor the Father. This does not mean honor the Son as the Father’s equal but rather honor the Son as if he was the Father because he is the Father’s representative. That we are not to honor the Son as the Father’s equal is evidenced by the following: 1 Cor. 15:25-28, Phil. 2:9-11, Rev. 5:13-14 – end.

    Thirdly, the Greek word used in 1 Cor. 1:2 for “call upon” is also used of the Roman Emperor in Acts 25. It has nothing to do with praying. You have perverted the Greek manuscripts this time.

  63. on 26 Nov 2012 at 11:04 amSean

    DT,

    Please do not use multiple comments to address the same person, since it overwhelms our recent comments list. You can separate your thoughts by using a dashes like so.
    ———————————————-
    I have combined your comments.

  

Leave a Reply