In this clip that has been edited by Jeff Campbell (a basic unitarian and fellow facebook friend to many of us here on the KR blog), he takes a segment of a debate featuring Sir Anthony Buzzard & Joseph Good vs. Dr. James White & Michael Brown and then does his own video commentary on Dr. White’s points.

Basically in the debate, Anthony was presenting the terrific argument he has brought up for years, that Psalm 110:1 shows two different lords.  See the following links from Anthony for greater detail:

http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/adonai.htm

http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/adoni.htm

http://focusonthekingdom.org/113.pdf

And even here on this very blog a few years ago: http://lhim.org/blog/2007/06/05/adoni/

The first is Yahweh Himself represented in most Bible translations by the all CAPS “LORD” and is ”Adonai” in the Hebrew.  The second lord is actually a different word in Hebrew. It is ”Adoni” and should be represented by a little case “lord”.  The critical importantance here is that the first “Adonai” always means God Almighty Himself in all of its occurances.  And the other “Adoni” never means diety, but typically always refers to human beings (and on a very few occasions – angels).  But it never meant God Himself.  This important fact should be seen for what it is - a crushing blow against the trinity belief since it clearly shows that the second lord there in that verse with God is a human being designated by God to be his representative (just what the very word “Messiah” is suppose to mean).  Therefore the New Testament usage of this over and over for Jesus not only tells us that he is the Messiah.  But that as such, he could NOT be God.

However in the debate, Dr. James White brings up an interesting counter to this argument. His main point was that the Masoretic “vowel pointing” that proves/shows that  the two root “Adon” words are actually different (Adonai vs. Adoni) was something that Judaism developed centuries after Jesus.  His comment was bascially that by this much later time the Jews would have wanted to counter the deity issue with the usage of their vowel points.

Jeff Campbell here in the video, brings up an interesting point as well that in the original Dead Sea scrolls of Psalm 110, Adonai wasn’t there.  It was actually a form of the Yahweh name itself.

So what does everyone think about both points?  What is the counter to White’s point about the later formation of the vowel pointing?  And what of Jeff’s point about the original words used by David in his Psalms were before Judaism’s over-the-top reverence that caused them to switch YHWH to Adonai?

 

257 Responses to “Countering the counter to Adoni in Psalm 110:1”

  1. on 17 Sep 2011 at 12:21 pmDoubting Thomas

    Ron S,
    Thanks for another informative article. If the Dead Sea Scrolls used God’s holy name in place of Adonai, then in Psalms 110:1 you would have – Yahweh says to my Lord (Adoni) “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies my footstool.”

    From what I understand the Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest surviving documents that give us the original Hebrew O.T. writings in their original form. From what I understand the oldest copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been scientifically dated to 125 BCE using carbon dating techniques…

  2. on 19 Sep 2011 at 5:42 pmJoseph

    [...] And even here on this very blog a few years ago: http://lhim.org/blog/2007/06/05/adoni/ [...]

  3. on 19 Sep 2011 at 7:44 pmDoubting Thomas

    Hi Joseph,
    Nice to see you’re still hanging around. I’ve been talking to Lorraine who says she’s not a Jew, but a Hebrew descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. She doesn’t believe that any of the N.T. writings are valid, and of course this means she doesn’t believe that Y’shua was God’s promised Messiah. She is very well versed in the O.T. scriptures, which is where she gets all of her beliefs from. I believe you are the most knowledgeable person on this site, when it comes to the O.T. scriptures, so I was wondering if you would care to join us in our conversation.

    The O.T. writings are not my strong point… :)

  4. on 20 Sep 2011 at 11:26 amRon S.

    DT,

    Thanks. Yeah King David would have wrote YHWH for the first “LORD” in Psalm 110:1 and not “Adonai”.

    But what was orginally written for the second “lord”?

    SO, where is everyone else? I’d like to hear thoughts from Sean, Xaiver, Mark C., and other KR bloggers on this subject. Hint, hint, nudge, nudge.

  5. on 20 Sep 2011 at 6:13 pmJoseph

    Hi Ron, I’m posting my response again for the second time. I thought it went into moderation, but apparently you have posted and I don’t see it. Also, my post #2 above looks to have been changed. I never posted a link to the article on this blog. Looks like some site bugs. Here is my first response…

    It is interesting that you posted this article at this time. I am right at the end of a study to refute Dr. White’s and Dr. Brown’s argument. The point that James White brought up was really a wild card in that debate with Anthony. It also wasn’t really anything that helped his case.

    The fact is, Jeff’s position does not negate what White is claiming. Sure the DSS have the sacred name written in the Psalms as YHVH “LORD.” But what Jeff doesn’t realize is that the title for God, Adonai (with qametz), is present in the DSS as well, as supported by the MT (Masoretic text). Psalm 110 was never recovered in the DSS so we will never know, pending another discovery, what was really written. This is why we have to rely on the Septuagint (LXX), MT, POT, Targums, ect, for now.

    What Dr. White is arguing is that “adoni” in Psalm 110 could be in fact saying Adonai. Dr. White is claiming it would read, “Yahweh said to my Adonai.” He is not arguing against the fact that the “YHVH” sacred name is being used in Psalm 110:1 for the first LORD.

    Why does he claim this? Well, it comes from a argument that Dr. Michael Brown makes in one of his books on Judges 6:13-15. Which is why I was surprised to see that Dr. Brown did not step in and add more on what Dr. White had presented. I guess he didn’t need to as the MSS that they whipped out seemed to have caught Anthony and Joseph off guard.

    Dr. Brown argues that because v15 says Adonai in the MT, and the LXX uses “kurious mou – my lord”, and that v13, which says adoni in the Hebrew and Greek, then could point to a change in the Masoretic vocalization of ‘adoni.’ He also argues that the LXX is several hundred years older than the MT, so therefore a more credible source to the original Hebrew.

    While he is correct that the LXX says something different than the MT. I will show why that is irrelevant, and also evidence that perhaps Adonai is the correct pronunciation. This would suggest the Masorites got it right and the LXX got it wrong.

    Please bear with me as I’m only a couple days away from finishing this study in which I’ll post all my notes on this here in the blog. Even better, perhaps someone can post it as a new article in which we can invite Dr. Brown and Dr. White to try and come and defend their claim? Contact me by email if you are interested in doing so.

  6. on 20 Sep 2011 at 11:19 pmJoseph

    DT,

    I’m flattered, but I still have a lot to learn myself. If only I had all day to study. ;)

    I don’t see what the difference is between a Jew and a Hebrew if she believes that she is of the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

  7. on 21 Sep 2011 at 2:49 pmRon S.

    Joseph,

    Thanks for the great reply. I don’t know what happend to your first post. I or Sean or Mark C as moderators typically get an email when a comment gets put in moderation “limbo”, but I never saw one.

    Yes I would be very interested to reading your study and I’d be glad to see about posting it here on the blog. Email it my way when you are done. You can send it to: ronshock (and I’ll spell out the rest to not get spammed) at gmail dot com.

    I got that White was arguing that the second “Adon” could be “Adonai” instead of “Adoni”. Clearly he said that the vowel pointing came hundereds of years after Jesus and could have been used against the diety issue that the gentile church was already into by then. This on the surface seems like a legit contention point. But is it really? If the Masorites put the vowel pointing in there to show the difference because this is what the original Tanakh Scriptures meant, then is there hard evidence of this??

    I look forward to seeing what you’re working on!

  8. on 21 Sep 2011 at 5:49 pmJoseph

    Ron S.

    I got that White was arguing that the second “Adon” could be “Adonai” instead of “Adoni”. Clearly he said that the vowel pointing came hundereds of years after Jesus and could have been used against the diety issue that the gentile church was already into by then. This on the surface seems like a legit contention point. But is it really? If the Masorites put the vowel pointing in there to show the difference because this is what the original Tanakh Scriptures meant, then is there hard evidence of this??

    Right, but as I was saying, any brass to his whole argument stems from the Judges 6:15 verse, in that the LXX uses ‘adoni’ (kurios mou) when the Masorites used ‘Adonai.’ An obvious disagreement. Although Dr. White does not refer to this evidence in the debate, I know that is what the punch line will be. It’s to cast doubt on whether the MT got the vowel markings right in Psalm 110:1.

    By saying that the vowel pointings coming several hundred years later, therefore the MT had lost the true vocalization, is not really a argument at all, it’s his opinion. Which is why the use of Judges 6:15 to discredit the MT’s use of the root ‘Adon’ is crucial to his position.

    I’m hoping to have my paper finished by this Friday, and I’ll email you when it’s done. Just want to make sure I can verify a few translations from various MSS.

  9. on 03 Oct 2011 at 11:19 amTim (aka Antioch)

    So here is what I am understanding (after about 8 reads of this thread) – it all boils down to the second ‘Lord’ in Psalm 110:1.

    - Psalm 110 was not in the Dead Sea Scrolls, so they are not of help to decipher.
    - The masoretic text (MT) says ‘adoni’, which makes it distinct from the first Lord. Unitarians argue that ‘adoni’ is never used of God and thus Jesus, being the second Lord, cannot be God. The trinis counter that the MT was much later and was doctored to refute Jesus deity.
    - The trinis point to the LXX which uses ‘kurios’ for both Lords so there is no distinction. LXX is older and should then be more reliable.
    - This verse is the most often quoted in the NT, but it too just uses ‘kurios’ as does the LXX.
    - What do other MSS say? (Would love to see Joseph’s research)

    Meanwhile, here is another link from a pro-trinitarian perspective arguing primarily that Yahweh is referred to as ‘adoni’, which would render the distinction in the MT much less meaningful:

    http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/psalm110_1.htm

  10. on 03 Oct 2011 at 1:17 pmSarah

    Tim,

    Excellent summary. The article was very challenging as well and I plan to examine his arguments more carefully. This issue touches on a thread of research I’m looking into, regarding the use of “Kurios” in the NT. The other day I ran across a very useful website along these lines. It might be of some use to you and others:

    http://kurios.homestead.com/

  11. on 03 Oct 2011 at 2:40 pmLORRAINE

    Sara and Tim I believe that this scripture Psalms 110 has the same tampering as the scripture Isaiah 7 vs.14 where Isaiah is telling Ahaz that YHWH GOD will give him a sign of the birth of a child to the ‘virgin’ which was replaced with the Hebrew word ‘almah’ in which many scholars agreed means a married maiden or a young maiden taken by her husband. These were the signs for Isaiah’s children, Isaiah, 8:vs. 18. Here in Psalm 110 YHWH is speaking to his servant his elect but the two usages of Lord I think should not have been worded this way. It brings much confusion to us. Further down YHWH describes him the servant his elect as a priest as well and compares him to Melchizedek the priest of the most high GOD in Genesis 14. Therefore YHWH GOD is talking to his elect his future high priest. Praise YHWH.

  12. on 03 Oct 2011 at 5:05 pmLORRAINE

    Joseph, can you help me or anyone who might know to tell me where did the word Jew originate from was it from either Judeah, or Judah or neither? Did it have something to do with the split of the south and north Israel? Another problem I have is what is the difference between a Jew and a Gentile? Also, Hebrews can have many nations there are Moabites, Edomites, Hittites, Amalochites, Amorites in which many turned to their iniquities with YHWH GOD and others but I identify with the Hebrew Israelites as my descendants from Abram, Isaac and Jacob the fathers of the covenant with YHWH GOD for what YHWH GOD told Abraham in Genesis 15:vs. 12-21 and it is known that from the river of Egypt unto the great river of the Euphrates this is all of south of what is now called Africa through the western parts of Kemit or Africa. Who but the so called blacks were into this bondage and sold as bondwomen and bondmen as in Deut., 28:vs.68 which has already been prophesied. Praise YHWH.

  13. on 03 Oct 2011 at 6:40 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    Thanks for the link, Sarah. I just embarked this morning on a ‘kurios’ word study. Very daunting – 1000+ references in the NT alone. Your link will defintely help break it down.

  14. on 03 Oct 2011 at 11:56 pmJoseph

    Tim,

    I should have my paper done soon. Been busy, and a few other points of research have come up that I needed to study on more. I should be able to finish it tonight or tomorrow.

    Lorraine,

    I understand where the word Jew comes from. Today the term ‘Jew’ is used as a general word for one who believes in Judaism regardless of their ancestral tribe. I’m sure you would agree that not all Jews today are solely of the tribe of Judah. I’m consider myself a “Messianic Jew,” my wife and daughter are Israeli Jews, so I speak and understand the language fairly well. To clarify, my point is that if all Hebrews are of the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel), then a Jew is a Hebrew as well. I don’t make it a point either to try and separate the terms Hebrew and Jew either.

  15. on 04 Oct 2011 at 2:45 amLORRAINE

    Joseph, Now I am realizing that if I have to ask you then I am still of the lost ones who were scattered and who do not know who they are and as for asking the Gentile I understand that this cannot just be told to me. For the prophesy says in Isaiah 60:vs.1-7 and Jeremiah 16:vs.16-19 we’ll all come together soon. So you’re saying that Hebrew Israelite and Jew Israelite are the same? What I do know is they’re not suppose to be separate but because people are all so stiffneck and their knowledge is running to and fro and being increased for nothing this is what we have now, Daniel 12:vs. 4,10. I hope you do not mind me asking but is the Jew the same as the Gentile or is one a separate race or is it Gentile a religious belief? Zech., 9:vs.9-14. Anyway, in the end YHWH wants us all to come back unto him on the day of YHWH I AM THAT I AM. This is all that matters really because whether we came from Eden and are Edenic or Jerusalem, Zion, Israel or Judah I know we are all related from the twins of Isaac, Jacob and Esau and the war between the light of YHWH GOD, and the dark of the enemy is nearing its final stages. Praise YHWH.

  16. on 04 Oct 2011 at 10:11 amTim (aka Antioch)

    Thanks Joseph. Looking forward to it. Our own Jaco also had this paper on the subject:

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

    Also, Anthony Buzzard was actually confronted with this issue in a debate with Drew Ayers (see christianmonotheism.com site) back in 2007. Anthony did not rebut in detail in 2007 but did dismiss the charge as unfounded. There is no evidence to support the charge that the MT was intentionally corrupted and while White is seeking to do so with his MSS, it appears to be a weak argument.

    For myself, I have reached the following conclusion – we won’t know for certain what the original word for the second Lord was. While I can accept the MT, I understand that trinitarians will not. But, to me, the more compelling argument comes from the balance of the verse. It clearly shows a heirarchy with the first Lord being superior to the second. The second Lord sits and watches while the first Lord does all the work. This is not equality and unless you buy into ‘functional subordination’, this passage refutes the trinity on the ‘co-equal’ clause.

  17. on 04 Oct 2011 at 1:11 pmSarah

    But, to me, the more compelling argument comes from the balance of the verse. It clearly shows a heirarchy with the first Lord being superior to the second. The second Lord sits and watches while the first Lord does all the work. This is not equality and unless you buy into ‘functional subordination’, this passage refutes the trinity on the ‘co-equal’ clause.

    Good point. Totally agree.

  18. on 04 Oct 2011 at 6:07 pmJoseph

    Tim,

    I read Jaco’s paper and was a good read. Jaco has a great way of relaying a message in a clear and concise manner. However, I did find a couple errors…

    The Qumran Psalms Scroll, dated between 30 and 50 CE also contains the 110th psalm. (Show picture and acknowledgment) As can be seen here, the Tetragram is written in distinct Paleo-Hebrew characters. In the Qumran Psalms Scroll the distinction between YHWH and ADNY is thus clearly made in the 110th psalm.

    This is false. The DSS does not contain Psalm 110. And while I agree that the Paleo sacred name was written in the 11Q Psalm scroll, but so is “adonai.” See Psalm 141:8 11Q5.

    So using the argument that only the Paleo version of the sacred name is used in the Psalm scroll and not “adonai”, therefore any reading of the root ADNY must be read as “adoni” is false.

    “The form ‘to my lord,’ l’adoni, is never used in the OT as a divine reference…the generally accepted fact that the masoretic pointing distinguishes divine references (adonai) from human references (adoni)” (Wigram, The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the OT, p. 22) (Herbert Bateman, “Psalm 110:1 and the NT,” Bibliothecra Sacra, Oct.-Dec., 1992, p. 438).

    This is also false. In Judges 6:15 the LXX translates “adonai” as “kurios mou – adoni” in reference to the divine God. But I explain this in my paper and why either vocalization could be used and not break the language of adonai only being referenced to God.

    Now you see why I’m writing up my paper on this. I want to put a final end to all the important loose ends out there. There are a lot of claims being made by the Unitarian side that aren’t entirely true, or miss important information. If we are to debate Dr. White and Dr. Brown we need to get all the facts straight.

  19. on 04 Oct 2011 at 8:24 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    Thanks Joseph. If the trinitarian argument wants to claim that both Lords are ‘adonai’, they would have to support functional subordination. Otherwise, how could they explain the inequality between the two Lords. Does that make sense?

  20. on 04 Oct 2011 at 11:07 pmRay

    It’s quite clear to me that David’s Lord whom God had said would be at his right hand until his enemies were subdued, was not a man at the time of the writing, but was in fact David’s Lord, one whom we now know as Jesus.

    For God to have a Lord over man whom he created by Jesus Christ is certainly not contrary to scripture.

  21. on 05 Oct 2011 at 2:30 amJaco

    Hi, Joseph,

    Please check out http://biblical-studies.ca/dss/dss-introductions/81-11q5.html . From what I read here, the Qumran scrolls did contain Psalm 110, albeit partially.

    God bless,

    Jaco

  22. on 05 Oct 2011 at 6:40 pmRay

    Q. Was the Tinity Doctrine made for man, or was man made for the Trinity Doctrine?

  23. on 05 Oct 2011 at 7:14 pmJoseph

    Jaco,

    That site you pointed me too does not show Psalm 110. In one of the lists it cites in brackets [110] as part of a list structure of Davidic pieces. The reason it is in brackets is because it does not exist. I have checked over my copy of the DSS Psalm 11Q5 to verify this.

    Mainly Davidic Pieces (5)
    101 – 102 – 103; 109 – [110]

    Passover Hallel (6)
    [113 - 114 - 115 - 116 - 117] – 118

    Notice the ‘Passover Hallel structure [113 - 117] are in brackets as well and do not exist, but 118, outside the brackets does exist.

  24. on 05 Oct 2011 at 7:54 pmDoubting Thomas

    Hi Ray,
    I believe the Trinity doctrine was made by man for man. The basic presumptions and teachings of the Trinity doctrine are found nowhere in the bible. I believe it all started with a group of people that were saying that there is no way that Y’shua could have been a human being. They believed that he must have been superhuman and this later developed into the idea that he must have been a God Man of some sort or another…

  25. on 05 Oct 2011 at 9:05 pmJoseph

    Although I agree with Jeff that Psalm 110 does not support Dr. White’s position, he has made a few mistakes in the video. Before we move on within this thread we need to first point out these fallacies.

    1) From what I understand, Dr. White is not proposing that Psalm 110 reads, “adonai said to adonai,” or, “YHVH says to YHVH” He proposes that it says, “YHVH says to adonai.”

    2) YHVH is written in the Paleo Hebrew in the 11Q5 Qumran DSS, but so is ‘adonai.’ Jeff said in the video that no use of ‘adonai’ is present in the Psalm 11Q5 scrolls as only the paleo sacred name form was used of God at that time. This is false. See; Psalm 141:8, 129:5, 119:68, 130:3. These are just a few examples of ‘adonai’ being in the same Psalm scrolls as the paleo written form of the sacred name.

    There are so many issues with Dr. White’s arguments in the video above that ultimately he has to rely his conspiracy assumption that the Masoretes changed the vocalization based upon their bias against Christians. It’s a desperate attempt by him. I’m going to put that notion to shame as soon as I finish my paper. I’m waiting to hear back from a well known scholar on a inquiry I have into earlier MSS evidence to support the MT before I publish it. I don’t like to put information out there without much scrutiny and study.

  26. on 05 Oct 2011 at 9:12 pmJoseph

    Tim,

    If the trinitarian argument wants to claim that both Lords are ‘adonai’, they would have to support functional subordination. Otherwise, how could they explain the inequality between the two Lords. Does that make sense?

    Yes, agreed.

    One way they do explain inequality is through made up rules that govern the Trinity. For example, there was a Trinitarian that a few of us were debating with awhile back ago that went as far as to say that the Triune God can transfer omniscience. That is how he explain that Jesus could not know the hour and still be God. Only through ridiculous mental jousting and illogical extrapolation can Trinitarians logically pool together the mathematical impossibility of the Trinity.

  27. on 05 Oct 2011 at 10:48 pmRay

    Jesus certainly is and was, in the days of his flesh, more than mere human. Though he belonged to the race of Adam, as far as men could tell, his being was of God in a divine way more so than any other man, for none other was conceived by God as he was.

    No other man could claim God as his Father to the extent of Jesus.

    Being the same as us in so many ways, he was different than the rest of us. He was unique in ways that are indeed unique.

    He is the amazing mystery of God, and what’s also amazing to me is that men like David knew of him by faith.

  28. on 05 Oct 2011 at 11:05 pmDoubting Thomas

    Ray,
    You said, “He is the amazing mystery of God, and what’s also amazing to me is that men like David knew of him by faith.”

    I agree. I just disagree with all the people that say he wasn’t fully human, and that he was in reality some sort of hybrid, or God Man, or God clothed in human flesh, etc…

  29. on 06 Oct 2011 at 1:53 amJaco

    Joseph,

    Thank you for pointing that out to me. I will have to correct that.

    You also disagree with Bateman’s observation:

    “The form ‘to my lord,’ l’adoni, is never used in the OT as a divine reference…the generally accepted fact that the masoretic pointing distinguishes divine references (adonai) from human references (adoni)” (Wigram, The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the OT, p. 22) (Herbert Bateman, “Psalm 110:1 and the NT,” Bibliothecra Sacra, Oct.-Dec., 1992, p. 438).

    It should be noted that Bateman is not arguing around adoni as such as he does the contraction, l’adoni, or “to my lord.” We all know that the LXX translated Adonai as “my lord” in less that 5 places. But “l’adoni,” I agree is always used as a non-divine reference.

    I’m looking forward to your paper, Joseph.

    One other thing we can consider, especially to counter the idea of the Masoretes’ “conspiracy,” is the very anthropomorphic vss. 5-7. The Masoretes, had they truly had a conspiracy, would much rather have pointed the ADNY in vs. 5 as reading, Adoni, referring to the human Messiah. But they didn’t. They pointed ADNY as reading Adonai, regardless of the difficulty this pointing would lead to, particularly around the very anthropomorphic references in the said verses.

  30. on 06 Oct 2011 at 9:15 amSarah

    For example, there was a Trinitarian that a few of us were debating with awhile back ago that went as far as to say that the Triune God can transfer omniscience. That is how he explain that Jesus could not know the hour and still be God.

    Amazing. I am finding that trinitarian scholars have conflicting views on this one. I was just listening to a sys theo lecture by Wayne Grudem, and he said that Jesus had to be omnicient, omnipotent, and omnipresent at all times, or he was not fully God. I would love for him to explain exactly how Jesus was omnipresent during his ministry on earth.

  31. on 06 Oct 2011 at 10:11 pmJoseph

    Jaco,

    Thank you for pointing that out to me. I will have to correct that.

    No prob. :) Out of all the Psalms, the most quoted and controversial one is missing… go figure. But, like most of the DSS, I can’t imagine it being anymore than a vowel-less reading of the Masoretic text.

    You also disagree with Bateman’s observation:

    “The form ‘to my lord,’ l’adoni, is never used in the OT as a divine reference…the generally accepted fact that the masoretic pointing distinguishes divine references (adonai) from human references (adoni)” (Wigram, The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the OT, p. 22) (Herbert Bateman, “Psalm 110:1 and the NT,” Bibliothecra Sacra, Oct.-Dec., 1992, p. 438).

    It should be noted that Bateman is not arguing around adoni as such as he does the contraction, l’adoni, or “to my lord.” We all know that the LXX translated Adonai as “my lord” in less that 5 places. But “l’adoni,” I agree is always used as a non-divine reference.

    I don’t disagree with the Hebrew rendering of the vocalization, I was just pointing out another MSS in the LXX that translates adonai as kurios mou.

    What would be more prevalent about the ‘lamed’ preposition is if it were never put before ‘adonai’, but only the ‘adoni’ occurrences. Do you know the answer to this? From off the top of my head I don’t believe there is an occurrence where the lamed preposition is given to adonai. I know of elohim (l’elohim, el’elohim).

    One other thing we can consider, especially to counter the idea of the Masoretes’ “conspiracy,” is the very anthropomorphic vss. 5-7. The Masoretes, had they truly had a conspiracy, would much rather have pointed the ADNY in vs. 5 as reading, Adoni, referring to the human Messiah. But they didn’t. They pointed ADNY as reading Adonai, regardless of the difficulty this pointing would lead to, particularly around the very anthropomorphic references in the said verses.

    Great point, they want it both ways. I also point out how Dr. Brown on one hand appeals to the LXX reading of Judges 6:15 to try and prove a vocalization change of adonai, yet on the other hand he doesn’t agree with the the LXX rendering of ‘kurios mou’ in Psalm 110. Do White and Brown differ on this? I noticed that while White was speaking about this to Buzzard in the debate that Brown didn’t interject anything. Perhaps Brown stays away from the Masoretes conspiracy approach that White posits.

  32. on 07 Oct 2011 at 1:45 amJaco

    Joseph,

    Bateman is correct on that one. L’adoni (contraction, lamed + ADNY) always refers to someone non-divine.

    Check out 1 Samuel 25:30. See the striking parallel with Ps. 110:1.

    You are correct in that Brown was silent on White’s point re Ps. 110:1. He seems to be more cautions than the “trigger happy” Calvinist who tends to be quite novel in many of his points. Brown is also cautious in that he’s never admitted to believing that Jesus was Yahweh…

  33. on 07 Oct 2011 at 4:47 amRay

    The bottom line seems to me to be that Christ was on the right hand of God at the time of David’s writing Psalm 110, though some might take it as a word of prophecy that is true today but was not yet at the time of his writing.

    It seems to me that the Lord Jesus was a Priest after the order of Melchizedek during David’s time on this earth, and that his service to God the Father was in the heavenlies, in the kingdom of heaven.

    Since at that time, at the time of David he could not yet offer his blood….or could he?

  34. on 11 Jan 2012 at 4:36 amDr. Al Garza

    Jeff, you again are showing that you do not know Hebrew or ancient Hebrew for that matter. If you check the DSS and the Masoretic text for Psalm 110 and then compare Isaiah 21:16 in both the DSS and the MT you will learn that they all use “Lord” the same way in Hebrew.

    Isaiah is not using “my Lord” either. Isaiah is just using “Lord”. Here are the passages.

    אדני DSS of Isaiah 21:16 “Lord” referring to God

    אֹדִני MT of Isaiah 21 with vowel points “Lord” referring to God

    לאדני DSS of Psalms 1:1 with the prefix “Lamed” which means “to”

    לַאֹדִני MT of Psalms 1:1 with the prefix also

    James White is correct when he states that the second “Lord” has no distinction in the DSS as Adonai vs Adoni of Psalm 110. Its is only in the MT with the vowel points that you see the distinction because of the cover up to deny Jesus as deity.

  35. on 11 Jan 2012 at 9:26 amJaco

    No, Dr. Al Garza. Your disagreement with any of us most certainly does not imply ignorance of ancient Hebrew or the Hebrew Scriptures on our part. That is a very arrogant statement by you.

    First off, Isaiah 21:16 does NOT have the contraction, l’adoni. It has in Hebrew, amar adonai eilai. I don’t see your reference there.

    Your Ps. 1:1 does not have l’adonai either. I’m not too sure what you’re trying to say.

    James White is utterly wrong re. his Calvinistic slant given to Ps. 110:1 and he gives away HIS ignorance of Hebrew and the ancient Hebrew textual traditions. (He can hardly read Greek properly, for goodness’ sake!) There was NO agenda with the Masoretic Text. There was NO conspiracy behind the vowel pointing of Ps. 110:1. In fact, the Masoretes opened themselves up for so much ridicule by pointing vs. 5 to be Adonai with the very problematic anthropomorphisms which follow. A much better option would have been to vowel-point the word as Adoni, referring to a human – BUT THEY DIDN’T. IF THEY HAD AN AGENDA, THEY DID PRETTY BADLY IN LETTING THIS ONE SLIP!

    Lastly, the original has Yahweh speaking to ADNY. That in itself precludes the ADNY Yahweh spoke to being Yahweh Himself.

    So, lots and lots of populist non-points by you. The Biblical Christ is not deity, sorry.

    Jaco van Zyl
    South Africa

  36. on 24 Jan 2012 at 2:01 amDr Al Garza

    No Jaco, you are very incorrect. You didn’t understand my point at all. You need to reference the DSS and the MT together in order to see the difference, which you are not doing. The DSS has NO VOWEL points in Psalm 110:1. It just read L-ADNY. You cant determine the word unless you had vowel points hundreds of year later to make the distinction.

    The Isaiah passage uses ADNY in the DSS directly to YHWH himself. Just because you add the prefix and suffix to ADON, which is the root word, doesn’t change the Hebrew word itself. Vowel points are useless at the time of Christ and before.

    I can see you don’t know the Hebrew from the DSS. This is the oldest texts we have in regard to the OT. Go compare the two and see the difference for yourself Jaco. Good luck with your review.

  37. on 24 Jan 2012 at 2:52 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    See post #18 from Joseph, I was under the impression that Psalm 110 was not in the DSS?

  38. on 24 Jan 2012 at 5:32 pmJaco

    Well, Dr Al Garza,

    I am very well aware of the issues surrounding Ps. 110:1. I am obviously more informed regarding these than you are, sadly for you. You are the one giving your presuppositions and indoctrination away by posting texts above devoid of the references to ADNY you’d have wanted them to have. Sorry, they’re not there, neither is your trinity invention.

    Your argument is also very reductionistic. Just because there was not vowel pointings does not mean that ADNY by default means Adonai (Yahweh.) Obviously you would want that, else you’d be believing in a God-dishonoring heresy from the fourth century…well, I’ve got news for you. The Masoretes had NO agenda, and I’ve given you a valid and solid argument above. Obviously you’d want to prove an agenda, because you need that to defend your doctrine. Secondly, Yahweh is already mentioned, so the second referent cannot be Yahweh again. Thirdly, you need to brush up on your literature studies on the matter, esp. by scholars such as McGrath, Dunn and Hays who go into quite detail, esp. with regard to the ancient Christian understanding of the text. And sadly for you, proves monotheism, not Trinitarianism.

    I’m afraid you’re also ignorant of the Targummim’s rendering of the text, showing the second referent to be completely human and that was the understanding the ancient Jews taught their learners from these Paraphrases.

    1 Cor. 15:28 sets the matter even further straight, in that it says expressedly that God is exempted from the “all things” being subjected to Jesus. Whoever you think the second Lord is, it’s not God, sorry!

    You’re assuming that there was no distinction drawn between the two lords based on the absence of vowel points alone…well, your assumption as been proven to be wrong.

    I think you are the one proving to be ignorant, Dr. Al Garza. Or you may be so blinded and self-consumed by the Nicean heresy, your skew arguments sound blissfully true to yourself. I think you need a reality check.

    Jesus is the human Lord Messiah, subject and inferior to the Almighty Yahweh (1 Tim. 2:5, 1 Cor. 15:28, 2 Cor. 1:3, 1 Cor. 11:3). That renders the Nicean/Chalcedonian inventions nothing less than God-dishonoring inventions.

    I’m awaiting your response.

  39. on 24 Jan 2012 at 5:48 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Thanks to all so much for engaging this vital point (no pun!). The Trinity has been imposed on the Bible! One of the most significant ways this has been done is by writing Lord (capital L) and not lord, for the second lord of Ps. 110:1. This is a fraud, since it hides the Hebrew word and also breaks the translators own plan of writing Lord only for ADONAI (LORD GOD) (which is not the word for the second lord!).
    First note that this psalm provides an entire framework for the NT. It is the golden text. Jesus used it to silence all objectors and so can we! The second lord is ADONI, which is the non-Deity title all 195 times. Dr. White pulled out a copy of the DSS and we were not taken aback (just curious to see what he had on his little pad), because all he could offer was that there are no points in the Hebrew of the DSS (Thus adoni and adonai look alike as consonants ADNY). Everyone in scholarship knows that! Nothing new.
    The written Hebrew did not have vowel points in the first century. That is common knowedge.
    But that is quite a different thing from saying that the Masoretes later deliberately and wrongly wrote Adoni (my lord) for Adonai (LORD GOD). The rabbis discussed this verse much earlier than the time of the official pointing (vowels). They thought it might be David at the right hand, or Abraham or Melchizedek. All that would be foolish nonsense if the text was read as ADONAI! (GOD).
    Here is the point. Jesus quoted this Psalm in Mark 14 and Stephen cited it in Acts 7, as he died. Who was there at the right hand? The SON OF MAN (not GOD!). They knew that is was not GOD speaking to GOD! That shows that adoni is perfectly correct.

    If any of you is interested in helping with making our point about the critical difference between ADONAI/ ADONI, could you email me please at anthonybuzzrad@mindspring.com. I have an idea!

  40. on 24 Jan 2012 at 9:18 pmJoseph

    Hello everyone,

    I have been busy lately, but I’m back to finishing my article I promised I’d release that focuses on refuting Dr. Brown’s statements regarding the usage of ADNY in Judges 6:15. I’m going to focus on it and have it posted for you by this weekend. Just need to brush up on some details.

    Dr. Al Garza,

    I believe you have fallen to over-generalizing lack of research like your colleagues Dr. White and Dr. Brown often do. Are you aware that the TarJonathon and other Targums that are dated pre-2nd century before there was possibility of Christian bias, support Masorete usage of vowel markings where the LXX and other MSS differ with each other? You have brought up the argument that somehow there was over a thousand year gap between Masorete vowel markings and the Original DSS Hebrew, and that somehow means the credibility of the MS is tainted. But, what you fail to realize is that the Targums bridge that gap to around the same time (liberally), to a few hundred years after (conservatively) of the vowel-ess Hebrew.

  41. on 24 Jan 2012 at 10:58 pmDr Al Garza

    Jaco, you can make all the rude remarks you want and I can sit here and call you ignorant as well. Very ignorant of the ancient Hebrew. You reference Dunn? Wow, then I reference Dr.Archer, one of the greatest Hebrew scholars. I am well aware of the ancient Jewish sources.

    Your rude attitude makes you appear very blinded from the scriptures and by whoever you’r reading. ADNY is really ADN without the suffix, so go do a word study on the root word Adon.

    The pre-existence of the Messiah is all over the NT. Hebrews 10:5 speaks of YHWH God and the body that is to be prepared for HIM. Revelation 1:8 speaks of the Almighty who is COMING, not the father who is coming but Jesus. The Father call Jesus “O Theos” in Hebrews 1:8 and Thomas call Jesus directly, “The Lord of me and the God of me”.

    I can go on and on with verse after verse that is supported by many Greek scholars like Wallace, Metzger, Robertson, Mantey, Young etc.

    The debate about Psalm 110:1 is small compared to the large body of texts that support Jesus as YHWH God. Jeremiah 23:6 calls the Messiah YHWH and is found in ancient Jewish texts as well.

    Psalm 110:1 has support from scholars from both sides.

    So Jaco, go read a book or something or grow some manners.

  42. on 25 Jan 2012 at 1:23 amDr Al Garza

    Joseph

    You can read my response to your statement at my website were I have an article on Psalm 110:1. Just cut and paste.

    http://nhbchristiantalk.webs.com/explainingpsalm1101.htm

  43. on 25 Jan 2012 at 2:22 amJoseph

    Dr Al Garza,

    Your article doesn’t answer any of my points.

    In your article you said:

    Anyone who has studied Hebrew long enough knows that the vowel points in Hebrew that make Adoni came from the Masoretic text between the 7th and 10th century CE.

    The Hebrew word mesorah refers to the transmission of a tradition. The vowel points that were added in the MT are based on a traditional belief and denial of the deity of the Jewish Messiah Jesus. I believe by looking back to the Dead Sea Scrolls and seeing how the Hebrew word was used we can finally see what the intent of the author had in mind.

    Firstly, I have already dubbed the argument, “The Masoretic Text Conspiracy Theory.”

    What you ignored in my response was the fact that we have the Targums that bridge this gap of vowel-ess Hebrew and vowel-ed Herbrew. I don’t know if you are aware, but the Targums define for us the usage of the Hebrew root ADONY in a clearer manner. For example; in the Hebrew we need vowels (and context) to see exactly how the root; aleph, delet, vav, nun, yud, is vocalized. But with the Targums, being written in Aramaic, Hebrew’s close cousin, it’s very different. In the Targumic Aramaic, YHVH is written in a “yud-yud” abbreviation, and adoni is written as “reboni.” There is no root ADONY. So we can take these ancient Targum texts and match them up with other MSS to see if the MT is indeed accurate in the vocalizations of the Hebrew root ADONY. In my paper I’m about to release this weekend I explain an occurrence where the MT and other MSS differ on the usage of ADONY in Judges 6:15 and how the TarJon can be used to clear up the discrepancy. In fact, the MT is more consistent than the LXX and SyrPesh in this case.

    Targums were used and are continued to be used in Judaism. It is said that for every Hebrew biblical passage read, the equivalent traditional Targum passage should be read as well. Many Targums are just as old if not older than the DSS. Targums were even found amongst the DSS.

    Second, are you saying that Psalm 110 was found amongst the DSS? It seems in your article you don’t explain whether the verse Psalm 110 you cite under the title “DSS and MT” is cited from the DSS or not.

  44. on 25 Jan 2012 at 2:27 amJaco

    Dr Al Garza,

    I don’t need you to lecture me on Hebrew. Just because I come to the opposite conclusions than you do and point out the flaws of your and others’ classical trinitarian slant you give to your arguments, doesn’t make me ignorant of Hebrew or the ancient manuscripts. Your judging my arguments as ignorance makes YOU the one who has an over-inflated ego and makes YOU the rude and insecure little dogmatist. So, unless YOU change your demeanor and start being willing to engage in a civilised manner, then EXPECT to meet some of your own medicine.

    I am very well aware of ADN (adohn’) and its meanings. I’m also very well aware of the suffix, yod, and how it changes to ADNY. But I’m also well aware of the fact that ADNY by default does not mean EITHER Adonai or adoni. That’s why there were rabbinical commentaries, targummim or paraphrases and tradition, transmitting the understood meaning of those words. I AM VERY WELL AWARE OF IT. You don’t seem to be aware of the various understandings and speculative meanings the ancient Jews and Christians gave to this central text. If you were, you’d not have argued the way you did, especially not in line with James White, whose “scholarship” cannot remotely be compared to people like Dunn, McGrath, Van Leer, Schillebeeckx, Berkhof, Caird, Robinson, Knox, Harnack, Kuschel, etc., etc., etc. Scholars who obviously have no doctrinal axe to grind.

    You barge into this discussion, flinging around attacks on people’s knowledge of Hebrew and the manuscripts, and you expect us to handle you with silk gloves?

  45. on 25 Jan 2012 at 3:07 amJaco

    So, Dr. Al Garza

    You won’t get special treatment here. Don’t think you can come on here and push people around. WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE??? You have hit an obvious blooper with your Isaiah 21 and Psalm 1:1 references. Your arguments and conclusions are reductionistic at best.

    Heb. 10:5 is no proof for your theology. Jesus “came into the world” just like every other human comes into the world:

    Jn 16:21 A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.

    Heb. 10:5 is a prophetic psalm of David and the LXX has David saying, “but you prepared a body for me.” This is NOT Yahweh speaking and certainly NOT Yahweh having a body prepared for him.

    Rev. 1:8 is not proof either, since it covers God’s eternality: he is, he was and he will be (“is coming”). That does not preclude God coming IN someone else or becoming present THROUGH someone else. Simple principle of shaluach. Compare:

    Isa 45:14 …Surely God [is] in thee; and [there is] none else, [there is] no God.

    Zch 8:23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days [it shall come to pass], that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard [that] God [is] with you.

    Heb. 1:8 is not proof either, since the LXX has God adressing the king. Does that make the king YHWH??? The ancient Jews didn’t feel threatened by this psalm, precisely since they understood the usage of elohim to not be limited to YHWH alone. No proof there.

    Seeing Jesus means seeing God, because Jesus is God’s perfect image and imprint. Jesus articulated it in John 14, where he clearly said that seeing him means seeing the Father. You won’t be consistent in your argumentation, claiming Jesus to be the Father, would you? As the image of the Father Jesus SHOULD reflect the Father and that you would admit in connection with John 14:9. But you quickly change your tune with John 20:28, while this has the exact same meaning: Seeing Jesus means seeing God, since Jesus reflects God’s glory (Heb. 1:1-3)

    I don’t see how the name, YHWH Tzid’qeinu proves that Christ is God. The theophoric name DOES NOT RENDER THE BEARER THEREOF DIVINE. Zedekiah means, Yah is Justice. Jonathan means Yah’s gift. Jochebed means Yah is glory. You won’t deify all these individuals, will you? Then why do it with Jesus? (because you have a doctrine to defend…)

    I will most certainly continue to read many, many books, Dr. Al Garza. You should think about doing the same. And where it comes to manners, I’ll be the imitator and you the example…how’s that for a deal?

    I hope we can discuss these issues further in CIVILITY.

    Take care

  46. on 25 Jan 2012 at 3:13 amJaco

    I have two questions for Dr. Al Garza:

    Is Jesus Yahweh or is he distinct from Yahweh?

    Since you say in your comment above that Jesus is Yahweh, is Jesus the Most High, then?

    Simple questions with simple answers.

    Thanks

  47. on 25 Jan 2012 at 4:17 amDr. Al Garza

    Jaco,

    You began with the attacks so go back and read your own posts.

    You clearly have no clue of the Hebrew scriptures since you rely only on the LXX for all your answers. You are wrong on Jer.23 and the ancient Jewish writing disagree with you as well. It is the Messiah who is to be named and proclaimed, literally in the Hebrew, YHWH…

    Go read the book, “The Messiah Texts”, which deals with the view of the Messiah from the last three thousand years.

    Hebrews 10 is stating clearly that Christ existed before he became man. Read the prepositions in the Greek.

    Hebrews 1:8 still has God calling the son God.

    Revelation is speaking of Jesus as the first and the last the Alpha and the Omega which is only spoken of YHWH God in Isaiah.

    Thomas called him Lord and God in the Greek.

    Jesus through out the NT is called God. The major Greek scholars like Wallace, Metzger, Mantey, Robertson, Young etc. all agree with me.

    Who in the hell do I think I am? I am just a mere Christian who follows the YHWH God.

    Take care Jaco.

  48. on 25 Jan 2012 at 4:18 amDr. Al Garza

    Jaco

    Yes to both questions, simple enough?

  49. on 25 Jan 2012 at 4:37 amDr.Al Garza

    Jaco, here are some more references for you of Jesus being YHWH God.

    God
    references: Gen. 1:1; Psa. 45:6, 7; Isa. 9:6, 7; Zech. 13:7; 7:16; Ex. 3:4, 15; Num. 22:22; Dt. 4:34; 5:24; etc.

    1 Tim. 3:16; John 1:1-14; 9:38; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8,9, 5:6; John 5:18; Rom. 9:5; Phil 2:5-11

    ________________________________________

    Creator
    references: Gen. 1:1, 2:7; Isa. 64:8; 44:24; 1 Kings 8:23; Prov. 16:4

    Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:3; John 1:1; 14; Rev. 4:11; Heb. 1:8,10-12

    ________________________________________

    Savior
    references: Isa. 43:11; 45:15, 21; Isa. 9:6-7

    Luke 2:11; Acts 5:31

    ________________________________________

    Redeemer
    References: Isa. 41:14; 49:26; 60:16; Hos. 13:4; Job 19:25; Psa. 49:8

    Luke 1:68; Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:12

    ________________________________________

    Almighty
    References: Gen. 17:1

    Rev. 1:7-8

    ________________________________________

    Lord of Lords
    References: Deut. 10:17

    1 Tim. 6:15

    ________________________________________

    King of Kings
    References: Dan. 2:47

    1 Tim. 6:15

    ________________________________________

    Judge
    References: Mic. 5:1; Isa. 33:22; 1 Sam. 2:10

    John 5:22,7; Acts 10:42

    ________________________________________

    LORD of all
    References: Gen. 2:4; Gen. 14:2; Deut. 4:29

    Acts 10:36

    ________________________________________

    LORD of Glory
    References: Psa. 24:8; Isa. 40:5

    John 1:1-3, 14; 1 Cor. 2:8

    ________________________________________

    Rock
    References: Psa. 18:31; Deut. 32:3-4

    1 Cor. 10:4

    ________________________________________

    Husband
    References: Jer. 31:32

    2 Cor. 11:2

    ________________________________________

    King of Israel
    References: Isa. 44:6; Zech. 9:9

    John 1:49; Matt. 2:2

    ________________________________________

    Prince
    References: Isa. 9:6

    Heb. 2:10

    ________________________________________

    Holy One
    References: Isa. 41:14; Isa. 43:15

    Acts 3:14; Mark 1:24

    ________________________________________

    Eternal One
    References: Micah 5:2; Psa. 90:2

    Matt. 2:6; John 8:58

    ________________________________________

    Pre-Existent One
    References: Ex. 3:14

    John 8:56-59

    ________________________________________

    Omnipresent One
    References: 1 Kings 8:27

    Matt. 28:20

    ________________________________________

    The Only God
    References: 1 Chron. 29:11

    Rev. 4:11

    ________________________________________

    Shepherd
    References: Psa. 23:1

    John 10:11,16

    ________________________________________

    Only Savior
    References: Isa. 12:2; Jer 3:23; Jon. 2:9; Zech 9:9; Psa. 68:19; Psa. 79:9

    John 1:12; Acts 4:12

    ________________________________________

    Aleph and Tav
    References: Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12

    Rev. 1:8, 11; 21:6; 22:13

    ________________________________________

    Every knee shall bow
    References: Isa. 45:23

    Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:10

    ________________________________________

    Confession Saves
    References: Joel 2:32

    Rom. 10:9-13

    ________________________________________

    Faith in Him Saves
    References: Hab. 2:4

    Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11

    ________________________________________

    Son of God
    References: Psa. 2:2-9; 45:6; 110; Prov. 30:4

    Heb. 1:8-9; Matt. 22:44

    ________________________________________

    Searcher of hearts
    References: Jer. 17:10; 1 Chron. 28:9

    Rev. 2:23

    ________________________________________

    Virgin Born
    References: Isa. 7:14

    Matt. 1:23

    ________________________________________

    I AM
    References: Isa. 43:10

    John 8:24

    ________________________________________

    Lion of Judah
    References: Gen. 49:9; Hos. 5:14

    Rev. 5:5

    ________________________________________

    True Light
    References: Psa. 27:1

    John 1:9; 8:12

    ________________________________________

    Honored
    References: Psa. 30:1

    John 5:23-24

    ________________________________________

    Pierced One
    References: Zech. 12:10

    John 19:34-37

    ________________________________________

    Stone of Stumbling
    References: Isa. 8:13-4

    1 Pet. 2:7-8

    ________________________________________

    The Full Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ

    Here are some additional considerations about the Person of Jesus that clearly indicates that He is a co-equal member of hashilush hakodesh (the “Holy Trinity”), and therefore is none other than God Himself (note that some of the following points have been adapted from the Christian Think Tank and its discussion regarding the Trinity).

    1. Biblical Evidence Demonstrates that Jesus is God.

    o Citations from the Tanakh in the New Testament show that Jesus is YHVH Himself (Matt 11:10; 1 Cor. 10:26; Rom. 10:9-13; Eph. 4:8; Heb 1:8ff).

    See also the table (shown above).
    o
    The earliest materials (e.g. hymns, blessings, prayers, formulas, doxologies embedded within the New Testament) indicate that the early church recognized Jesus as God, equal with the Father (Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 1:15-20; 1 Tim. 3:16; Matt. 28:19; 1 Thess. 3:11; 2 Thess. 2:16; 1 Cor. 16:21).
    o
    Jesus is singled out for glorification by the Church (Heb. 13:20-21;
    2 Peter 3:18; Rev. 1:5-6).
    o
    Jesus is consistently called “Lord”– a very misleading title if He were not God (close to 200 times), especially given the fact that the LXX (Septuagint) uses this term to refer to YHVH.
    o
    The angels belong to Him (2 Thess. 1:7) and are commanded to worship Him (Heb. 1:6).
    o
    Jesus is described in words like ‘glorious’ and ‘Lord of Glory,’ etc. (James 2:1;
    1 Cor. 2:8).
    o
    The “Spirit of Christ” is identified with the “Spirit of God” (Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:9-11; Phil. 1:19; 1 Pet 1:11), and the “mind of the Lord” is dentified with the “mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16).
    o
    Jesus is called Savior (Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6) as is the Father (1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; 4:10). For references to YHVH being called Savior, see the table above.
    o
    He is to be co-extensive with the Father in being praised (Rom. 1:25 with Rom. 9:5; Phil. 1:20; Rev. 5:12ff ) and in worship and glory (2 Tim. 4:18; 2 Pet. 3:18; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 5:12ff ) and even in being offered a sacrifice (Rev. 14:4).
    o
    He explicitly is called God (1 Tim. 3:16, Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; John 20:28; 2 Pet. 1:1; Heb. 1:8ff; John 1:1; John 1:18; 1 John 5:20; Rev. 1:1 with 22:6,16) or some derivative thereof (Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:6-11).

    2. His claims to pre-existence.

    Jesus claimed the have been pre-existent before his birth. Indeed, He stated clearly that He existed before Avraham avinu (John 8:58-59). Throughout John’s gospel, moreover, Jesus is shown to have been pre-existent in heaven with glory before His incarnation (John 3:13; 6:33; 6:38; 6:62; 8:23; 8:42; 10:30-39; 16:28; 17:5).

    He is described as pre-existent in glory with the Father (Gal. 4:4; 1 Cor. 15:47; 2 Cor. 8:9; Rom. 8:3; 1 Tim. 1:15; Eph. 4:9; Col. 1:15-17; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 1:2; John 1:2-3; John 1:14; John 3:31-32; 1 John 1:2; 1 John 3:8; 1 John 4:2, 9;) and active at the time of Moses (Heb. 11:26).

    He created all things in the universe, including angels (Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:2; John 1:2-3; John 1:10).

    3. His claims relative to worship as God.

    o Jesus promised to come in ‘the glory of the Father’ (Mark 8.38) and held himself out as a legitimate object for religious faith (Mark 9:42; John 3:15; John 9:35f) even to the same extent as the Father (John 14.1).
    o
    Jesus never corrected those who either accused venerated Him of making himself equal to God (Mark 2:5ff; John 5:17ff; John 8:58-59; John 10:30-39; John 20:28).
    o
    Jesus claimed loyalty greater than all human loyalties (Matt. 10:37), including that He should be honored co-extensively with the Father (John 5:17f). He further claimed the Father is seeking Jesus’ glory (John 8:50 with 8:54b; John 13:31) and that the two are linked in unity (John 11:4).
    o
    Jesus used the divine epithet “I AM” (John 8:58-59, 24, 28).
    o
    Jesus accepted worship without rebuke, and even with commendation
    (John 9:35-38).

    Indeed, some claims of Jesus make no sense if He were not God Himself:
    o
    Jesus claims that his words will outlast time itself (Mark 13:31).
    o
    He claims that the eternal destiny of people depend on their response to HIM! (Matt. 7:21ff; Matt. 25:17ff).
    o
    He claims to have been the only one to have seen the Father (John 6:46; John 8:38 with Exodus 33:20).
    o
    He claims to be absolutely perfect/sinless – He ALWAYS pleases the Father (John 8:29; John 8:46).
    o
    Jesus makes statements that are completely ludicrous if he is not God (John 14:28; John 15:5; John 17:10).

    4. His Authority as God.

    o To forgive sins (Mark 2:5ff; Luke 7:48f).
    o
    Over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28; Matt. 12:8).
    o
    Jesus claims that the elect are his and that the angels are his (Mark 13:26f) (either in possession or authority over).
    o
    Over the Torah (Matt 5:21). Jesus implied this by His numerous, “but I say to you…”, indicating divine authority over the words of Torah (Matt. 5).
    o
    Over evil and principalities (Luke 10:19; John 17:2).
    o
    To confer a kingdom — in the SAME MANNER that the Father does (Luke 22:29f).
    o
    To send the Holy Spirit of God (Luke 24:49; John 4:10 with 7:37-39; John 15:26; John 16:7).
    o
    The angels belong to Him (2 Thess. 1:7) and are to worship Him (Heb. 1:6).
    o
    His is Lord of ALL (Acts 10:36).
    o
    The Father put ALL things under His feet (1 Cor. 15:27).

    5. His Equality with the Father.

    o
    Jesus claims that one’s response to Jesus is equated to one’s response to God (John 15:23).
    o
    Jesus claims that to see Him is to see the Father (John 14:9).
    o
    He claims to be, and is repeatedly called, the potentially blasphemous title “Son of God” (Mark 14:62 et. al.).
    o
    He NEVER corrects those who accuse him of making himself equal to God (Mark 2:5ff; John 5:17ff; John 8:58-59; John 10:30-39) nor those who called him “GOD” (John 20:28).
    o
    He claims to be on a par with the Father and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19).
    o
    He claims that his coming was the same as God’s coming (Luke 19:43ff).
    o
    He claims to operate co-extensively with the Spirit (Mark 21:14-15 with Matt. 10 and Mark 13).
    o
    He claims to operate co-extensively with the Father (John 5:17ff; John 10:30-39; John 15:9).

    6. His Unique relationship with the Father.

    o
    Jesus considered His Sonship relationship with the Father to be ABSOLUTELY unique (Mark 12:1-11; John 20:17).
    o
    He claims to be the unique Heir of God (Mark 12:1-11).
    o
    He claims to have EXCLUSIVE knowledge of the Father (Matt. 11:27; John 7:28-29).
    o
    He claims to have been the only one to have seen the Father (John 6:46; John 8:38).
    o
    He claims to be absolutely perfect/sinless; He ALWAYS pleases the Father
    (John 8:29; John 8:46).

    7. His exalted nature and power.

    o
    Jesus is often linked to the word ‘Lord’ (Mark 11:3; Mark 5:19-20).
    o
    Jesus claimed to be greater than King David (Mark 12:35-37), than the Temple (Matt 12:6), than the prophet Jonah (Matt. 12:41), than King Solomon (Matt. 12:42).
    o
    He claimed that his rank in the universe is superior to the angels (Mark 13:32).
    o
    He implies that he is, or will be, omnipresent (Matt. 18:20; Matt. 28:19).
    o
    He claims to have access to knowledge of the future and events occurring in heaven (Luke 22:31).
    o
    He claims to be able to give freedom (John 8:36).
    o
    He claims to be able to raise himself from the dead (John 10:17ff).

    8. How those around Christ responded to Him.

    o
    God calls him “Son” and declares that He is “pleased” with Jesus (Matt. 3:16).
    o
    God tells some of the disciples to pay attention to Jesus (Matt. 17:5).
    o
    Evil spirits knew he was the Son of God (Matt. 8:28-29; Mark 3:11ff) and the Holy One of God (Mark 1:23f).
    o
    His enemies knew he was claiming to be God (Matt. 9:3; Matt. 26:63ff; John 5:18; John 10:33) — and accused him of blasphemy.
    o
    Some of the general populace called/considered him God (Luke 7:16; Luke 8:39-40).
    o
    John the Baptist recognized Jesus’ RADICAL superiority to himself (Matt. 3:13; John 1:26-30, 34).
    o
    The disciples and those whose lives He touched WORSHIPPED Him (Matt. 14:33; John 9:35ff).
    o
    He was repeatedly called the Son of God (Matt. 14:33; Matt. 16:16; John 1:26-30, 34; John 1:49; John 11:27).
    o
    He was called “God” directly (John 20:27f).
    o
    Later Rabbinical writings ‘remember’ some of these exorbitant claims of Jesus.

    From careful consideration of these Scriptures, it is manifestly the case that Yeshua Ha-Mashiach is identified as no other than the LORD (YHVH) of the Tanakh, and is therefore to be worshipped, honored, and revered as YHVH.

    “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son (Yeshua), even as they honour the Father (YHVH). He that honoureth not the Son (Yeshua) honoureth not the Father (YHVH) which hath sent him.” (John 5:22-23).

    He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
    (1 John 5:12)

  50. on 25 Jan 2012 at 10:39 amSarah

    Hello Dr. Al Garza,

    Regarding your comments on Hebrews 10:5. Throughout Hebrews 10, two types of bodies being discussed. Christ’s own individual body (10:10, 10:20), and the collective body of Christ (10:21, 10:25). Psalm 40 reflects this as well, speaking of an individual (40:7) and that individual in the midst of the assembly (40:10).
    Additionally, the intent of Hebrews 10 is to encourage perseverance in the face of persecution (10:33-36) by pointing the collective body of Christ to the example of the author of their faith, Jesus Christ the individual man.

    Hebrew 10:20 uses the word sarx, or flesh, to describe the sacrifice of his flesh. But notice that the word for body used in Hebrews 10:5 is soma, which can refer to an individual or an assembly of people in close knit community.

    For these reasons, I think it’s legitimate to understand Heb 10:5 as referencing the body of Christ – the church – which God has called in advance according to his purpose in Christ Jesus.

  51. on 25 Jan 2012 at 11:29 amJaco

    No, Dr. Al Garza, if you go back, you’ll find that you were the one on the offensive:

    Jeff, you again are showing that you do not know Hebrew or ancient Hebrew for that matter

    And what’s so funny, then you post scriptures, such as Isaiah 21 and Psalm 1:1 which don’t even contain what you hoped they contained…now isn’t that a ricochet…

    You clearly have no clue of the Hebrew scriptures since you rely only on the LXX for all your answers.

    You cannot be civil, can you, Dr. Al Garza? Well, that won’t stop me from exposing your and other traditional deceptions. Here goes:

    You clearly have no clue of the Hebrew scriptures since you rely only on the LXX for all your answers. You are wrong on Jer.23 and the ancient Jewish writing disagree with you as well. It is the Messiah who is to be named and proclaimed, literally in the Hebrew, YHWH…

    Well, ignoring your insult (or maybe you insulted yourself), I did not rely on the LXX in my answer to you regarding Jeremiah 23. I rely on the Hebrew:

    בְּיָמָיו תִּוָּשַׁע יְהוּדָה, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁכֹּן לָבֶטַח; וְזֶה-שְּׁמוֹ אֲשֶׁר-יִקְרְאוֹ, יְהוָה צִדְקֵנוּ.

    The last sentence, v’zeh-sh’mo asher-yiq’roo, yhwh tzid’qenu. And my position still stands that a theophoric name, Yahweh our righteousness, does not render the bearer of that name identical to Yahweh. If it did, then you had to worship Zedekiah (Yah is Justice) Jonathan (Yah’s gift) and Jochebed (Yah is glory) among many, many others. You won’t and for the very same reason you shouldn’t worship Jesus as Yahweh or deify Jesus as Yahweh…So you still have no point here.

    Hebrews 10 is stating clearly that Christ existed before he became man. Read the prepositions in the Greek.

    The original text in the LXX (here the text IS taken from the LXX and not the MT, if you didn’t know…) did not apply to Yahweh but to David. The antitypical David, or Messiah now, fulfills this text in the same way. Not the original, nor the fulfilled meaning of this text necessitates pre-existence, making your point a creation of your imagination. The Greek, eisercho’menos eis ton ko’smon does not imply preexistence, sorry. John 16:21 also has the preposition “eis” in “egenhthh…eis ton kosmon” and is applied to every human, anthropos, in general. So, still no point here, unless you believe every human must have a prehuman existence….

    Hebrews 1:8 still has God calling the son God.

    If you deify the son to son God, then, for the same reason (being called God), you’ll have to deify the original human recipient of the oracle. But you won’t and there lies your inconsistency and do you give your indoctrination away…no point, sorry.

    Revelation is speaking of Jesus as the first and the last the Alpha and the Omega which is only spoken of YHWH God in Isaiah.

    Jesus is never called the Alpha and Omega. He is called the first and the last and Revelation explains why:

    “I was dead, but look, now I am alive”. Also, Acts 26.23 “Christ, the first to rise from the dead”; 1Cor 15.20,23, “Christ the first fruits of the dead”. You need Jesus to be Yahweh, hence your ignoring the explanation rendered for his designation and your defaulting to your indoctrination. No point here either.

    Thomas called him Lord and God in the Greek.

    Yes! because Thomas saw Someone else in Jesus: namely the Original of whom Jesus was the image. You need to get past that, and not merely repeat your refuted claims. First-year apologetics students fare better than you do…LOL!

    Jesus through out the NT is called God. The major Greek scholars like Wallace, Metzger, Mantey, Robertson, Young etc. all agree with me.

    Oh, no, neither you nor your prejudiced sources are correct on this one. And even if it were the case, you need to prove that Jesus is called God in the Nicean/Chalcedonian sense and not in the representative sense of ancient Jewish shaluach principle or authority sense as in Psalm 82. Your scholars won’t change this, sorry. Modern-day scholars have also moved past such out-dated and dogmatically slanted “scholarship.” You should brush up on your reading…

    Who in the hell do I think I am? I am just a mere Christian who follows the YHWH God.

    Well, your demeanor and attitude will confirm or refute your very pious self-portrait above…

    Take one-by-one or as a whole, the Bible is the word of God, the Father, Yahweh, who is Yahweh alone and no one else – not even Jesus Christ.

    Yes to both questions, simple enough?

    My first question is, if Jesus is Yahweh or if he is distinct from Yahweh. Do you answer yes to the first or the second clause?

    I’ll reply to your answer above and the second answer shortly…

  52. on 25 Jan 2012 at 2:11 pmtimothy

    Sarah and Jaco,
    JCING
    1 Timothy 6:
    3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

    4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

    5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

  53. on 25 Jan 2012 at 6:52 pmDr Al Garza

    Sarah

    The soma is the same word Jesus uses in John 2 regarding his resurrection. He said he would raise the temple in three days. John says he was talking about his BODY=Soma in Greek. Hebrews 10 is not the church. The text is a literal reading.

  54. on 25 Jan 2012 at 7:14 pmDr Al Garza

    Jaco

    Enough with the insults for both of us. Lets just deal with scriptures from a civil and academic standpoint. Agreed?

    1.”The last sentence, v’zeh-sh’mo asher-yiq’roo, yhwh tzid’qenu. And my position still stands that a theophoric name, Yahweh our righteousness, does not render the bearer of that name identical to Yahweh. If it did, then you had to worship Zedekiah (Yah is Justice) Jonathan (Yah’s gift) and Jochebed (Yah is glory) among many, many others. You won’t and for the very same reason you shouldn’t worship Jesus as Yahweh or deify Jesus as Yahweh…So you still have no point here.”

    You are not in line with ancient Jewish literature on this verse. The Hebrew grammar does not agree with you either. Your interpretation is only for yourself. That proves nothing from the Hebrew grammar which you fail to look at.

    The text reads with the Messiah being NAMED YHWH and he shall be call OUR RIGHTOUSNESS. Your are being dishonest with the grammar.

    2.”If you deify the son to son God, then, for the same reason (being called God), you’ll have to deify the original human recipient of the oracle. But you won’t and there lies your inconsistency and do you give your indoctrination away…no point, sorry.”

    This is your answer to Hebrews 1:8? Show me a verse in the OT or the NT where God calls a man “O Theos” “the God”. Very weak from an academic point of view.

    3.”Jesus is never called the Alpha and Omega. He is called the first and the last and Revelation explains why:
    “I was dead, but look, now I am alive”. Also, Acts 26.23 “Christ, the first to rise from the dead”; 1Cor 15.20,23, “Christ the first fruits of the dead”. You need Jesus to be Yahweh, hence your ignoring the explanation rendered for his designation and your defaulting to your indoctrination. No point here either.”

    You should read Revelation 22:12 where Jesus is called the Alpha and Omega and he is COMING quickly which he states in verse 16 at the end of Revelation which again you ignore, “I Jesus…Yes I am COMING SOON”

    4.Yes! because Thomas saw Someone else in Jesus: namely the Original of whom Jesus was the image. You need to get past that, and not merely repeat your refuted claims. First-year apologetics students fare better than you do…LOL!

    WOW are you really this ignorant of Greek scholarship? No Greek NT scholar says that Thomas saw someong else inside him. What great NT are you reading? The grammar makes no such claim. First semester Greek NT students know more then you LOL HAHAH!
    Thomas proclaims Jesus directly as HIS LORD and HIS GOD.

  55. on 26 Jan 2012 at 6:42 pmXavier

    Ron S.

    So what does everyone think about both points?

    This is troubling to say the least. To undermine the Hebrew scriptures is not only a sign of desperation on the part of these people but sheer lunacy!!

    There is no evidence whatsoever that Ps 110.1 is somehow corrupt or erroneous let alone misunderstood by Judaism eons before Jesus came along.

    YHWH said to YHWH? Really? REALLY?! :/

  56. on 26 Jan 2012 at 7:33 pmXavier

    Just a word on the often-used trini argument where Jesus is said to “come into the world” from G.E. Ladd, A Theology of the NT, 1993, p. 261:

    The earth is frequently referred to as the dwelling place of humanity in language that is paralleled in Jewish idiom: coming into the world (John 6.14; 9.39; 11.27; 18.37), being in the world (9.5a), departing out of the world (13.1; 16.28b)…the idiom itself is familiar Jewish terminology.

    To come into the world means merely to be born; to be in the world is to exist; and to depart from the world is to die [H. Sasse, TDNT 3:888; see also 1 Jn. 4.1,17; 2 Jn7; Heb 10.5; 1Tim 1.15].

    Italics & bold added.

  57. on 26 Jan 2012 at 7:53 pmDr Al Garza

    Xavier

    I understand your point but nobody said, “YHWH said to YHWH” here. The point being made is that before the MT they had the DSS and in the DSS the Hebrew word that was used was “ADNY” without the vowel points. If you look at the MT it is spelled the same, “ADNY”. The only difference is the vowel points which were added to make the distinction.

    Now the passages in Isaiah and in Psalms use the Hebrew word for “ADNY” for YHWH as well. You can’t make the distinction until the MT which is hundreds of years later after Jesus.

    So was it Adonai or Adoni? I believe the answer is in verse 5 of Psalm 110 where it says Adonai is at the right hand which goes back to verse 1. Verses 1-4 is all YHWH up until verse 5 where it changes to Adonia who is at the right hand.

    That is all that is being said here, sorry for the confusion if any.

  58. on 26 Jan 2012 at 8:19 pmDr Al Garza

    Xavier

    Again, thanks for your input. The other passages we look are the passages were Jesus says:

    “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” (John 6:38)

    The Jews understand that the human body is only an earthly tent and vessal but Jesus claimed to have come down from heaven directly which means he had to exist before the incarnation. That is what Paul teaches in Phil.2:6-8

    The present active participle “huparkho” in the Greek, according to Thayer means “being originally” in the form of God before the incarnation, NOT AFTER. The Greek grammar does not allow any other interpretation.

    “who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

    Please check this out carefully. Thanks agian Xavier.

  59. on 26 Jan 2012 at 9:12 pmXavier

    Dr Garza

    The point being made is that before the MT they had the DSS and in the DSS the Hebrew word that was used was “ADNY” without the vowel points.

    Just to clarify I was not suggesting the text says, “YHWH said to YHWH” but that is the interpretation you are giving it. Is it not? If so, that makes 1 YHWH too many according to the Jewish-Christian creed [Deu 6.4; Mar 12.29].

    The Jews understand that the human body is only an earthly tent and vessal…

    Are you referring to the Jews of the Bible or sections of modern-day Jews? 2nd Temple Judaism certainly didn’t believe that.

    Jesus claimed to have come down from heaven directly which means he had to exist before the incarnation.

    So let me get this straight…in John 6 Jesus is actually teaching that he LITERALLY came down as a flesh, human being ["son of man"]?

    I am the bread that came down from heaven…This bread is my fleshJohn 6.41, 51

    Wouldn’t this mean that prior to him “taking on flesh” at the Incarnation, he was already “in the flesh”?

  60. on 26 Jan 2012 at 9:57 pmDr Al Garza

    Xavier

    I undersand what you were saying. I was correcting you when you said that is what trinitarians believe. We do not say, “YHWH said to YHWH”.

    We say, “YHWH said to Adonai”

    2. “Are you referring to the Jews of the Bible or sections of modern-day Jews? 2nd Temple Judaism certainly didn’t believe that.”

    I am referring to the apostle Paul who makes this distintion in his letter, 2 Corinthians 5 and 1 Corinthians 15:47. This was the clear understanding at that time.

    3. “So let me get this straight…in John 6 Jesus is actually teaching that he LITERALLY came down as a flesh, human being ["son of man"]?”

    No, I am not saying that at all. This is why I quoted you Phil.2:6-8 concerning the Messiah existing in the form of God before the incarnation. Read Phil.2:5-8. It is very clear in the Greek (see below)

    “who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

    Thanks again for your response.

  61. on 26 Jan 2012 at 10:33 pmXavier

    Dr Garza

    We say, “YHWH said to Adonai”

    Who is Adonai then? And I thought you said here that you do believe Jesus is YHWH. BTW, not all trinis believe it reads this way, one of them being Dr. Michael Brown over at his Line of Fire site.

    No, I am not saying that at all. This is why I quoted you Phil.2:6-8

    Your not answering my initial question to your John 6.38 reference. What is Jesus really saying here? Is he the preexistent human/flesh Son of Man who LITERALLY came down out of heaven? If so, what does this say about your Orthodox view regarding the Incarnation; where the he “took on flesh/humanity”?

  62. on 26 Jan 2012 at 10:48 pmDr Al Garza

    Xavier

    Adonai is another name for YHWH. The distinction is being made.

    You need to read Dr.Browns vol.3 book on “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus”. He agrees with me on the Psalm 110 about the vowel points and how no distinction can be made in the DSS.

    1. “Your not answering my initial question to your John 6.38 reference. What is Jesus really saying here? Is he the preexistent human/flesh Son of Man who LITERALLY came down out of heaven? If so, what does this say about your Orthodox view regarding the Incarnation; where the he “took on flesh/humanity”?”

    Xavier, I answered your question from scripture. God is spirit correct? Jesus claimed to come down from heaven to take on a human form and be the savior and redeemer of mankind. That is what Phil.2:5-8 says. You have not answered or commented on that verse.

    He was in the form of God and God is spirit according to Jesus in the gospel of John. Jesus did not have a body of flesh in heaven before the incarnation. No trinitarian believes that.

  63. on 27 Jan 2012 at 12:10 amSarah

    Hi Dr. Al Garza,

    You have mentioned Phil 2:5-8 several times now. If I may interject once again, this passage doesn’t refer to pre-existence. 

    As the last Adam, Jesus was indeed in the form of God. So was the first Adam before he sinned. Did the first Adam pre-exist as a spirit being, since he too was the “image of God” and the “son of God”? Of course not. Neither did Jesus.

    The first Adam considered equality with God something to be grasped. He chose disobedience and seized the fruit that Satan said would make him “like God”. Jesus, however, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. When he was tempted by Satan in the desert to rule over the kingdoms of the world, Jesus set aside his legitimate right to do so as the Son of God. Instead, he obediently humbled himself for the sake of his people, spending the next three and a half years serving Israel – even to the point of death on a cross. This is the true humility of Christ. 

  64. on 27 Jan 2012 at 12:20 amDr Al Garza

    Sarah

    Thanks for your reply. I would suggest you read 1 Cor.15:47 very carefully. (below)

    “The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”

    You also need to read and understand the passage from the grammar of the Greek. Phil.2 makes it clear that he was in the FORM of God before the incarnationa and then took on the FORM of a SERVANT/MAN. Read it carefully. (below)

    “who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

    The present active participle “huparkho” in the Greek, according to Thayer means “being originally” in the form of God before the incarnation, NOT AFTER. The Greek grammar does not allow any other interpretation.

  65. on 27 Jan 2012 at 2:14 amtimothy

    dr Al Garza,

    isosceles triangle has two equal but not the same angles and sides

  66. on 27 Jan 2012 at 9:08 amXavier

    Dr Garza

    Adonai is another name for YHWH. The distinction is being made.

    What distinction? Your still saying YHWH is speaking to YHWH here.

    [Dr Brown] agrees with me on the Psalm 110 about the vowel points and how no distinction can be made in the DSS.

    He nonetheless accepts the MT reading of the text; as EVERY OTHER Jew going all the way back to the LXX in the 300s B.C. did. Brown even agrees with his opponent Rabbi Singer on the reading of adoni:

    …Singer claims that la’adoni means…”‘to my master’ or ‘to my lord’”. Precisely. That was Yeshua’s whole point...No one would have thought that Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh, since his hearers certainly knew the text by heart as well, and since they distinctly heard two different words for Lord and lord: ‘adonai, meaning Yahweh, and ‘adoni, meaning…”my lord”. And that was Jesus’ whole point.

    pp. 134-135.

    That is what Phil.2:5-8 says. You have not answered or commented on that verse.

    We can deal with that seperately I am just interested in your interpretation of your first citation of John 6.38 and all the phrase “come/coming down/out of heaven”. You are claiming that this is to be taken LITERALLY. So once again…is Jesus saying that he LITERALLY came down out of heaven in the flesh, as the son of man? And how does this harmonize with the Orthodox view of the Incarnation?

  67. on 27 Jan 2012 at 12:23 pmJaco

    Dr. Al Garza
    1. On Jeremiah 23:6

    The text reads with the Messiah being NAMED YHWH and he shall be call OUR RIGHTOUSNESS. Your are being dishonest with the grammar.

    I am not being dishonest with the grammar. If I am dishonest, then I suppose the Trinitarian commentators of the NET Bible are also dishonest:

    The Hebrew word translated “justice” here is very broad in its usage, and it is hard to catch all the relevant nuances for this word in this context. It is used for “vindication” in legal contexts (see, e.g., Job 6:29), for “deliverance” or “salvation” in exilic contexts (see, e.g., Isa 58:8), and in the sense of ruling, judging with “justice” (see, e.g., Lev 19:15; Isa 32:1). Here it probably sums up the justice that the Lord provides through raising up this ruler as well as the safety, security, and well-being that result (see vv. 5-6a). In the NT this takes on soteriological connotations (see 1 Cor 1:31 in its context).Bold mine

    Secondly, since grammar is the factor determining the one being raised up to be Yahweh, then you have a problem, for the exact grammar is used elsewhere, where Jerusalem is to be called Yahweh our righteousness:

    23:6 “and this [is] his name whereby he shall be called, Yahweh our Righteousness.”
    v’zeh-sh’mo asher-yiq’roo, yhwh tzid’qenu;
    33:16 “and this [is the name] wherewith she shall be called, Yahweh our righteousness.”
    v’zeh asher-yiq’raa-lah, yhwh tzid’qenu;

    Based on the GRAMMAR then, we see Jerusalem being called identically the same as the one in 23:6. Using your argument consistently, then, Jerusalem is Yahweh.

    2. On Heb. 1:8

    This is your answer to Hebrews 1:8? Show me a verse in the OT or the NT where God calls a man “O Theos” “the God”. Very weak from an academic point of view.

    I’m afraid that’s not the case.

    The forty-fifth psalm celebrates a royal wedding; the poet addresses first the bridegroom and then the bride. The words here quoted form part of his address to the bridegroom. Indeed, our author may well have understood “God” in the vocative twice over in this quotation; the last clause could easily be construed “Therefore, O God, thy God has anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” This is not the only place in the Old Testament where a king, especially of the Davidic line, is addressed in language which could only be described as the characteristic hyperbole of oriental court style if interpreted solely of the individual so addressed. But to Hebrew poets and prophets a prince of the house of David was the vicegerent of Israel’s God; he belonged to a dynasty to which God had made special promises bound up with the accomplishment of his purpose in the world. And now at length the Messiah had appeared. In a fuller sense than was possible for David or any of his successors in ancient days, this Messiah can be addressed not merely as God’s Son (v. 5) but actually as God, for he is both the Messiah of David’s line and also the effulgence of God’s glory and the very image of his being. – FF Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 59, 60

    We should recall that Psalm 45.6-7 was probably addressed to Israel’s king, a fact that the writer of Hebrews was probably aware of since he carries on the quotation to Psalm 45.7, which speaks of the king as having been anointed by ‘God, your God.’ So again we are confronted with the use of ‘God’/ ‘god’ in a transferred sense, emphasizing the divinely accorded status of an individual while always aware that God was still the God of the one so described. In effect we are back into the powerful significance that Paul saw in Jesus’ Lordship while he continued to think of God as the God of the Lord Jesus Christ. – James D.G. Dunn, Did the Early Christians Worship Jesus?, p. 136

    “The epithet ‘god’ could be used of kings and judges even within Israel’s scriptures themselves (Ps. 45.6; 82.6; cf. Exod. 21.6; 22.8; Isa. 9.6-7). According to Exodus, Moses was commissioned to ‘serve as God’ to Aaron (Exod. 4.16; 7.1), and Philo does not hesitate to interpret this as God ‘appointed him as god’; Moses ‘was named god and king of the whole nation’; Moses was ‘no longer man but God.’ The implication is that however central and of crucial importance the Shema was for all devout Jews at the beginning of Christianity, that did not prevent them from using god-language metaphorically or with poetic flourish.” – James D. G. Dunn, Did the Early Christians Worship Jesus?, p. 66

    Vincent Taylor admits that in v. 8 the expression, ‘O God’ is vocative spoken of Jesus, but he says that the author of Hebrews was merely citing the Psalm and using its terminology without any deliberate intention that Jesus is God. It is true that the main point of citing the Psalm was to contrast the Son with the angels and to show that the Son enjoys eternal domination, while the angels were but servants. Therefore in the citation no major point was being made of the fact that the Son can be addressed as God…Of course, we have no way of knowing what the ‘O God’ of the Psalm meant to the author of Hebrews when he applies it to Jesus. Psalm 45 is a royal Psalm; and on the analogy of the ‘Mighty God’ of Isaiah 9:6, ‘God’ may have been looked on simply as a royal title and hence applicable to Jesus as the Davidic Messiah.

    – Raymond E. Brown, Jesus, God and Man, pp. 24-25.

    I couldn’t have said it any better myself. From an academic point of view, your statement above is a little overzealous…

    3. On Jesus being the first and the last.

    You should read Revelation 22:12 where Jesus is called the Alpha and Omega and he is COMING quickly which he states in verse 16 at the end of Revelation which again you ignore, “I Jesus…Yes I am COMING SOON”

    First off, in Revelation is an apocalyptic text where Jesus speaks on Yahweh’s behalf (Re. 1:1). Secondly, the titles shared by Jesus and Yahweh in no way make Jesus ontologically identical to Yahweh. That would be as logically flawed as saying, The Father is our Saviour, Jesus is our Saviour, therefore Jesus is the Father. You won’t apply such logic here, because you have a dogma to defend. What is more, this is perfectly in line with the valid Jewish usage of shaluach – something you and other Trinitarians solidly ignore:

    This sharing of titles stands within Jewish agency tradition, which transferred titles to an emissary as a way of showing his authority to speak and act for the one who sent him. In one sense, there is no more need to ask what these designations mean when applied to Christ, any more than it would be appropriate to ask what the name of God means when borne by the angel Yahoel or what the designation “the little Yahweh” means when applied to Enoch-Metatron in 3 Enoch. The transfer of name or title singled out the individual in question as the divine agent who represents God’s interests fully. This transfer of designations to God’s agent (including ones that normally belong to God alone) is a frequent feature of Jewish and Christian texts from this period. The already-existing language and the category of agency appears to do justice to the observed phenomena. The language and imagery used is thus well within the bounds of what one might expect to find in a Jewish context as a response to the arrival of God’s eschatological redeemer. The fact that the same sharing of throne and sovereignty is explicitly said to extend to Christians as well is not without significance. – James McGrath, The Only True God, pp. 74, 75, italics his.

    You may not agree with the above. But you are free to believe what you want to believe…

    4. Thomas’ exclamation

    WOW are you really this ignorant of Greek scholarship? No Greek NT scholar says that Thomas saw someong else inside him. What great NT are you reading? The grammar makes no such claim. First semester Greek NT students know more then you LOL HAHAH!

    Thomas proclaims Jesus directly as HIS LORD and HIS GOD.

    Let’s start with your logic (or the lack thereof). Your argument goes like this:

    If you see Jesus, you see God (John 20:28). Therefore Jesus is himself God.

    Argued consistently, then, you’ll have to become a Modalist, because your line of reasoning will have you conclude the following:

    If you see Jesus, you see the Father (John 14:9). Therefore Jesus is himself the Father.

    This is where you Trinitarians are and remain stuck with regard to John 20:28. This is a catch-22 you won’t get out of, precisely because you have to either reason inconsistently, or turn Modalist…you choose the lesser of two evils, because you have a sacred cow to defend.

    The correct way of reasoning should be:

    When you see an image, you also see the original it is the image of. Jesus was the image of God. Therefore Thomas saw God when he saw Jesus

    And,

    When you see an image, you also see the original it is the image of. Jesus was the image of the Father. Therefore Philip saw the Father when he saw Jesus.

    Problem solved :-)

    Now for the great NT scholars in agreement with the above:

    For the intimacy of the relationship between Jesus and God, the bound-togetherness of the Son and the Father, the mutual indwelling of each in the other, is all a way of saying that Jesus really is the Word of God, really is God speaking, though speaking in and through useless flesh (1.13; 3.6; 6.63). And no wonder that the Gospel climaxes in Thomas’ worshipful confession, ‘My Lord and my God’ (20.28)…For Jesus was understood very early on as the human face of God [JAT Robinson’s term], as the one who made the unseen God known and known more clearly and fully than he had ever been known before…Jesus was God, in that he made God known, in that God made himself known in and through him, in that he was God’s effective outreach to his creation and to his people. But he was not God in himself. Jesus is not the God of Israel. He is not the Father. He is not Yahweh. – Dunn, Did the Early Christians Worship Jesus?, pp. 122, 135, 142

    Both of these could potentially be understood as designations of the one true God. Yet…it was possible for other figures serving as God’s agents to also bear these titles precisely as designations that were shared by the one true God with his agent. It was also possible for both “god” and “lord” in a broader sense for other figures as well. Once again we are dealing with titles that were used within the context of Jewish monotheism without provoking controversy. – James McGrath, The Only True God, p. 66

    We must note in the first place that that which is entirely unique in Jesus relative to us is as a rule not expressed with the word “God,” but with the names like: lord, savior, firstfruits. Can we then, however, still speak of God’s becoming man? That, however, is an expression which is not derived from the NT. There the terminology is that of God’s sending his son, and of the Word (God’s creative speaking) which became flesh, and there are few times, on account of the intimate union of God and man in him, Jesus is called “God” (in any case in John 20:28…), but then only for the purpose of capturing in an accentuated formula Jesus’ uniqueness and instrumentality relative to us…; moreover, what is at stake in these passages in Christ as “the representative of God in the world and in history…himself the bearer of the divine office” (TDNT III, s.v. theos, p. 106). What we have here is a covenantal functionality which only in this way agrees with the numerous statements in which Jesus distinguishes himself from God, or is distinguished from God by the writers. – Hendrikus Berkhof, Christian Faith, p. 294

    Indeed, Jesus can say in one and the same discourse that ‘the Father is in me, and I in the Father’ and ‘my Father and I are one’ because ‘I am…acting as my Father would’: ‘my deeds done in my Father’s name are my credentials’. Again, in a later discourse, he says, ‘Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father’ because ‘I am not myself the source of the words I speak to you: it is the Father who dwells in me doing his own work’ (14.9f). Christ is the very ‘exegesis’ of the Father (1.18), and indeed himself theos (1.1, 18), because as a man he is utterly transparent to another, who is greater than himself (14.28) and indeed than all (10.29). The paradox is staggering , and it is no wonder that this Christology later fell apart at the seams into a disastrous antithesis between moral unity and metaphysical union.” – JAT Robinson, The Human Face of God, pp. 189, 190, italics his.

    You and other Trinitarians make one central problem by denying the Hebraic Messiah of his functional identity with God and hybridizing him with Hellenistic ontological categories that were utterly alien to the ancient Hebraic thought. What is even worse is that Messianic Jews, who are supposed to uphold this truth are all too happy to worship a Hellenistic-Jewish hybrid Christ-god. This error is very eloquently stated by JAT Robinson himself, where he said:

    The Christ is the one who does what God does, who represents him. He stands in the place of God, speaking and acting for him. The issue is not where he comes from or what he is made of. He is not a divine or semi-divine being who comes from the other side. He is a human figure raised up from among his brothers to be the instrument of God’s decisive work and to stand in a relationship to him to which no other man is called. The issue is whether in seeing him men see the Father, whether, in mercy and judgment, he functions as God, whether he is God to and for them. – The Human Face of God, pp. 183, 184.

    I think something you people will have to make peace with is that our position is the exact position some of the world’s best scholars agree with. As these scholars’ influence spreads in their lecturing halls and Sunday schools, more and more will learn about the real human Jesus, distinct from his Almighty Father, Yahweh. (Or maybe you can write them and also tell them they have no clue what the Hebrew and the Hebrew mss. say ;-) …)So that all honor, in Jesus’ name, will go to the One who is God alone, namely the Father (Php. 2:11)

    Also, not to forget, Ps. 110:1 is a solidly unitary monotheistic text, DISTINGUISHING Yahweh from the one he gives authority to at his right hand. The absence of the vowel points is a red herring and WAYYYYYY too much is made of it in an attempt to remove the obvious sting this text has on Nicean/Chalcedonian trinitarianism. So we still have Yahweh speaking to someone else who is ADNY. This second someone cannot be Adonai, since Yahweh, the one speaking, is Adonai, and he alone. This also ignores the ancient speculative understanding given to the second ‘lord’ of the oracle, placing him squarely within the human realm, the Targummim that confirms this, as well as the First-century Christian understanding of the text, depicting this ‘lord’ as utterly human, highly exalted, yet subjected to the True God, the Father (1 Cor. 11:3, 1 Cor. 15:20-28).

    Thanks,

    Jaco van Zyl

  68. on 27 Jan 2012 at 12:38 pmSarah

    Dr. Al Garza

    I would suggest you read 1 Cor.15:47 very carefully. (below)

    “The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”

    1 Cr 15 is frequently presumed to draw a dichotomy between the physical and immaterial, due to the Gnostic influcences of Greek culture upon the theology of the church. Paul’s comparison here is actually between a mortal human (Adam) and a resurrected human (Jesus).

    Adam was originally sinless. Jesus also was originally sinless. Both men had the same starting point, but Jesus did not fall. When he took the “form of a servant” in Phil 2, he refused his rights as the unfallen Adam, accepting instead the punishment of the fallen Adam on his behalf.

    1 Cr 15:48 says Christians are from heaven just as Christ is from heaven. Yet we did not pre-exist our pysical births. 1 Cr 15 clearly has the resurrection in view throughout the entire passage. The idea of pre-existence is absent and unnecessary.

    The present active participle “huparkho” in the Greek, according to Thayer means “being originally” in the form of God before the incarnation, NOT AFTER. The Greek grammar does not allow any other interpretation.

    The passage does not use the phrase “before the incarnation”. You’ve imposed that assumption upon the text. “Being originally” does not require him to pre-exist his own birth. Luke 1:35 clearly tells us his point of origin was in Mary’s womb.

  69. on 27 Jan 2012 at 2:07 pmXavier

    Jaco

    Just to add to the title of “first and the last” in Revelation early on Newton identified a corruption when it came to the title of “Alpha & Omega” and “Almighty”:

    Ambrose to prove the Omnipotence of Christ cites Apoc. 1.8 in these words. “I am Alpha and Omega saith the Lord Iesus, who is, & who was, & who is to come, the Omnipotent.{“}The true reading is not, “the Lord Iesus” but “the Lord God” – that is “God the Father”.

    Again in Apoc. 1.11. the words of the Son of Man “I am Alpha & Omega the first & the last” have crept erroneously into some few Greek MSS, out of one of which Erasmus printed it, & into the Arabic version. For they are wanting in the Alexandrin MS & most others & in the Syriac, Latin, & Æthiopic, & in the Commentaries of Arethas & Primasius, & in the Complutensian Edition.

    http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00264

  70. on 27 Jan 2012 at 7:22 pmJoseph

    Xavier,

    Thanks for that Newton study. Very interesting.

    Citing the MSS evidence in regards to the MT vocalization is precisely what I’ve been trying to explain to Dr Al Garza in my comment #43 above, in which he has blatantly ignored to respond. The reason is, is because he would find out that Dr. Brown and Dr. White have over-generalized and under studied their position as to the MSS evidence in regards to the correct vocalization of the second Lord in Psalm 110:1. I have made this clear by citing the un-biased Targum evidence we have that pre-dates the hundreds of years of “Christian bias” that Trinitarians claim the Masoretes had. So, this in fact, proves that the Masoretes had no bias as to what vocalization was used. They were simply trying to be accurate based upon tradition and knowledge.

    Dr Al Garza also seems to be taking Dr. Brown’s work as empirical as he said here…

    You need to read Dr.Browns vol.3 book on “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus”. He agrees with me on the Psalm 110 about the vowel points and how no distinction can be made in the DSS.

    I have read this chapter out of Dr. Brown’s book and it is full of sloppy under-research that is very misleading. For example, in section 4 of his vol. 3 book he cites passage Judges 6:15 as being evidence that the Masoretic vocalization could have changed due to the disagreement in MSS evidence. He points out that where the MT translates as ‘adonai’ the LXX translates as ‘kurious mou – adoni.’ Naturally this leads one to think that because the LXX is a earlier MSS, that it must be more accurate, and the Masoretes could have made a mistake. But what Dr. Brown failed to research, is that not all LXX manuscripts agree. He generalized the Septuagint, which is a common error. Also, he failed to mention that even many of the LXX manuscripts we have are copies from hundred of years later. The codex alexandrinus in fact agrees with the MT usage of Adonai, and is more consistent than both the codex vaticanus, and codex sinaiticus when compared to similar passages regarding Judges 6:15. This is just one example in which more detail is involved. But, I don’t want to get ahead of myself as the paper I’m going to release this weekend will go into detail as to all the MSS evidence and what it means in response to Dr. Brown’s spurious claims.

  71. on 27 Jan 2012 at 7:56 pmDr. Al Garza

    Jaco

    One quick comment on your comparison of Jer.23 and 33. Jeremiah does not use the Hebrew word “sh’mo” in 33:16. Only Jer.23:6 uses that Hebrew word for naming the Messiah YHWH. You need to read the Hebrew text better. In Jer.33 Israel will PROCLAIM “yiqro” YHWH as her righteousness not naming her YHWH.

  72. on 27 Jan 2012 at 7:58 pmDr. Al Garza

    Xavier

    I already explained more then once about Jesus preexisting in heaven. He was not in Heaven in a physical body. I gave you the passages to support this and even quoted one to Sarah. Please review what I said. Thanks again for this discussion.

  73. on 27 Jan 2012 at 8:01 pmDr. Al Garza

    Jaco

    I don’t know what you’re cutting a pasting but even Anthony Buzzard admits that in Hebrews 1:8 God calls the Son “O Theos” and admits to this one instance.

  74. on 27 Jan 2012 at 8:11 pmDr. Al Garza

    Jaco

    The Father is not called out savior. It is YHWH God who is our savior.

    Also The Father being in Jesus and Jesus being in the Father does not make them one person. Thomas proclaimed Jesus as HIS God and HIS Lord not the Father within Him. Nowhere does the context support your view on this. You are giving me your interpretation not a grammatical argument.

    So you’re telling me that trinitarian Greek and Hebrew scholars like Wallace, Metzger, Mantey, Young, Robertson, Archer, Kaiser etc. are not Great? Just scholars who only agree with you and are new to this subject in a historical standpoint? All the reformers and the Greek and Latin Fathers were wrong? I don’t think so.

  75. on 27 Jan 2012 at 8:13 pmDr. Al Garza

    Sarah

    The Greek grammar makes it so, not my imposed view. Check the grammar and you will see what I am trying to say. He existed in the form of God before the incarnation. Then the text says that he emptied himself and became a man, incarnation. Please read again carefully.

  76. on 27 Jan 2012 at 8:24 pmXavier

    Dr Garza

    He was not in Heaven in a physical body.

    Then why use John 6.38 and the “come down/out of heaven” sayings in support of your preexistence?

    Can you please comment on the quote I posted regarding your seeming disagreement with Dr Brown on Ps 110.1?

    Lastly, is the Shema that is agreed upon by both Jesus and the Jewish scribe in Mar 12.29-32 a unitarian or trinitarian creed?

  77. on 27 Jan 2012 at 8:36 pmDr. Al Garza

    Xavier

    I used that passage in John to show that he existed before the incarnation. He took on a physical form in the incarnation. Jesus did not say ” I came from physical birth only”. The leaders were the ones suggesting your position in John 8. They believed as you do that Jesus was only a mere man. Jesus tells them that He came down from heaven and is not of human origin. Paul defends this in Phil.2:5-8.

    I used Brown’s comment to show that he does have some agreement with me on the historical position of the MT. Ancient Hebrew is much different then Modern and the MT Hebrew. Brown is still a trinitarian regardless of how we translate Psalm 110:1 but I also believe that verse 5 supports the Adonai position. There you have Adonai who is at the right hand. It connects with verse 1. YHWH is mentioned I believe 4 times until verse 5. Then it changes to Adonai who is at the right hand.

    The Shema is a Jewish creed not Unitarian or Trinitarian. The argument circles around the word “echad” as you know.

  78. on 27 Jan 2012 at 8:49 pmDr. Al Garza

    TO EVERYONE HERE

    I would like to say that I can’t reply to everyone at the same time. Some of you post many things that take time to reply too. If you can ask one point at a time that would be greatly appreciated. I might miss some points but I am trying my best to respond quickly.

    If I haven’t responded to your questions or missed one please let me know and I will respond as soon as I can. Thanks again to some of you for this discussion.

  79. on 28 Jan 2012 at 8:33 amtimothy

    dr Al Garza,

    this is to refresh your memory and for doing 2 tim 2:15

    decrech benai adam=anthroopatheia=condescensio

    QUESTION:

    who is a priest for ever ? (thou & thy) in verse 1, 3 & 4

    psalm 110:(kjv)
    4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

  80. on 28 Jan 2012 at 8:57 amXavier

    Dr Garza

    I used that passage in John to show that he existed before the incarnation. He took on a physical form in the incarnation.

    Actually, if we take it literally, Jesus is explicitly saying that he came down out of heaven ALREADY in the flesh, as the Son of Man. Notice the parallel of his flesh with that of the bread. Once again, the verses I already posted above found in John 6.41,51:

    I am the bread that came down/out of from heaven…This bread is my flesh…

    Add to this other teachings in the Gospel like John 3.13 where some MSS. have Jesus declaring that “no one has gone up to the heaven, except he who came down/out of heaven–the Son of Man who is in the heaven.”

    I used Brown’s comment to show that he does have some agreement with me on the historical position of the MT.

    I don’t get it. You, along with others like Dr. White, are throwing doubt on the MT reading of Ps 110.1 by pointing to other rare examples where the reading might be ambigous when it comes to adonai or adoni. But Dr. Brown does no such thing and instead actually agrees with Rabbi Singer on the distinctions, as I have quoted him above. Here’s more:

    When Jesus quoted this verse in Hebrew…he would have distinguished between the Lord God and David’s…lord. (The same would apply to Aramaic if Yeshua quoted the verse in a Targumic form.)

    Christian translations of Psalm 110.1 into English also distinguish between Yahweh and David’s [lord]…To repeat, there is no such ambiguity in English translations, since the English custom for more than 500 years has been to render yhwh with LORD (all upper-case)…

    p. 138, f.278.

    The Shema is a Jewish creed not Unitarian or Trinitarian. The argument circles around the word “echad” as you know.

    So if its neither, why revert to trinitarianism?

  81. on 28 Jan 2012 at 3:15 pmDr. Al Garza

    Timothy

    According to the NT book of Hebrews it is the Lord Jesus. In Psalms it is referring to him as well. The whole of Psalm 110 is about the Messiah and verse 5 makes reference of him again as Adonai who is at the right hand from verse 1.

    Thanks.

  82. on 28 Jan 2012 at 3:21 pmDr. Al Garza

    Hello Xavier

    I don’t fully agree with your interpretation of John 6 because the whole gospel is around the meaning of Jesus being God from the opening of John 1:1-18. Phil.2:5-8 is the understanding by Paul of Jesus existing in the form of God and THEN becoming a servant/man. The form of God is being God. You can’t exist in the very form of God and not be God which is NOT FLESH.

    Thank again Xavier for this discussion.

  83. on 28 Jan 2012 at 3:32 pmDr. Al Garza

    Xavier

    Brown states in his book on page 137 the usage of Adoni to YHWH himself by believing the Angel of the Lord is also YHWH. He then goes on the say on that same page about the same spelling of “ADNY” before the vowel points and the usage in the MT and the vocalization of the text. He does not agree with Singer on these points.

  84. on 28 Jan 2012 at 3:55 pmDr. Al Garza

    Xavier

    I reverted to trinitarianism because of the NT and the revelation of Jesus who claimed to be God and who was believed by the Apostles to be God. Through careful investigation I discovered the person of the Holy Spirit who is also identified as a person and God.

    I found that there was a person who was called the Father and he was called God. I found there was a person who was called the Son and he was called God. I found that there was a person who was called the Holy Spirit and he was called God. Yet the bible says there is only one God. I came to the conclusion, as did all the early church fathers did, that the three persons were the one true God. I can’t fully comprehend how this works because Im not God but I know it to be true.

  85. on 28 Jan 2012 at 4:35 pmXavier

    Dr Garza

    I don’t fully agree with your interpretation of John 6…You can’t exist in the very form of God and not be God which is NOT FLESH.

    Its your interpretation I am questioning here. I agree that God is not flesh but the way your reading the Johannine saying of “coming down/out of heaven” in light of those verses does imply that. Therefore, there must be some other explanation to the saying and what Jesus is talking about in John 6.38. In other words, its “the flesh” that preexists. This does not fit your own trini theology.

    Brown states in his book on page 137 the usage of Adoni to YHWH himself by believing the Angel of the Lord is also YHWH.

    It would help if you could quote to us what your referring to. All I see on pg. 137 is Brown arguing for the distinctions between the 2 words:

    …both ‘adonai (used only for Yahweh) and ‘adoni (used for men and angels, as we just noted)…

    Again, maybe I missed it but can you show me where he agrees with you that the MT vowel pointings should be discarded? Or where exactly he says adoni can refer to YHWH/Adonai?

    I found that there was a person who was called the Father and he was called God. I found there was a person who was called the Son and he was called God. I found that there was a person who was called the Holy Spirit and he was called God.

    You missed the other “Persons” who are called God:

    1. Moses, Ex 4.16; 7.1

    2. The judges of Israel, Ps 82.1,6 [cp. John 10.34]

    3. The Davidic king, Ps 45.6.

    So exactly how many Persons make up your “one God”?

  86. on 28 Jan 2012 at 8:20 pmtimothy

    dr Al Garza,

    thank you for your answer to my last question and post #83 to Xavier.

    2 peter 1:(KJV)
    20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

    you are implying the lord Jesus is GOD and Melchizedek is GOD and Abram and king David are the great grandfathers of GOD and the comforter is GOD and the Spirit of truth is GOD and GOD is the king and priest of GOD and Moses is GOD and the judges of israel are each GOD ans king David is GOD.

    exodus 3:(kjv)
    3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

    1 corinthians 14:(kjv)
    33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

    john 4:(kjv)
    24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

    levitcus 19:(kjv)
    2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.

    GOD is Holy and GOD is a Spirit…GOD is HOLY SPIRIT…GOD is one!

    next question: so then who is Mary, the daughter of Joseph and cousin to John the baptist?

  87. on 29 Jan 2012 at 2:32 amDr. Al Garza

    Xavier

    1. “Its your interpretation I am questioning here. I agree that God is not flesh but the way your reading the Johannine saying of “coming down/out of heaven” in light of those verses does imply that. Therefore, there must be some other explanation to the saying and what Jesus is talking about in John 6.38. In other words, its “the flesh” that preexists. This does not fit your own trini theology.”

    My interpretation is that Jesus was affirming John 1:1-18. The Word was with God, was God and became flesh. Jesus was simply saying that he existed in heaven and came down from heaven. The Jews understood this clearly. Blasphemy was the charge against Jesus. I am not saying that he existed in the flesh but was God as spirit.

    2. “It would help if you could quote to us what you’re referring to. All I see on pg. 137 is Brown arguing for the distinctions between the 2 words”

    Brown says that without the vowel points in Psalm 110 that Adonai is spelled the same as Adoni. The Hebrew is ADNY and both are spelled the same without distinction and without vowel points.

    “As every student of Hebrew knows, biblical Hebrew was written with consonants and “vowel letters” only; the vowel signs were added hundreds of years later. Yet both ‘adonai’ (used only for Yahweh) and ‘adoni (used for men and angels, as we just noted) are spelled identically in Hebrew, consisting of the four consonants ‘-d-n-y. How the can Rabbi Singer make such a dogmatic statement about the differences between these two forms in the Bible?” (Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol.3 page 137)

    3. “You missed the other “Persons” who are called God:

    1. Moses, Ex 4.16; 7.1

    2. The judges of Israel, Ps 82.1,6 [cp. John 10.34]

    3. The Davidic king, Ps 45.6.

    So exactly how many Persons make up your “one God”?”

    Nobody denies that men were referred to as “Elohim” (judges) but never is a man called “the God” as Jesus was in Hebrews 1:8 by God himself. Jesus is identified as God not as a Judge. The NT verses are numerous on the texts that affirm Jesus as Lord and God. The Jewish leader understood this and continually wanted to kill him for blasphemy and not for simply claiming to be a prophet/man.

    Thanks again for the questions.

  88. on 29 Jan 2012 at 2:42 amDr. Al Garza

    Timothy

    I never said God was Melchizedek. Please read my post again.

    Jesus is God and the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God yet there is one God. That is all I am saying.

    Also the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is quoted using personal pronouns like “I” in Acts 13 and commands with authority. Matthew 28:19 according to Granville Sharps rule of grammar says each one is distinct from the other using the article which precedes the noun for each name. They are distinct and each is a person yet they are under one name. “Baptizing them in the NAME (singular) of THE Father and of THE Son and of THE Holy Spirit” The article before each noun demands in the Greek grammar that each is distinct from each other yet they share the same single name.

    2. “next question: so then who is Mary, the daughter of Joseph and cousin to John the baptist?”

    Can you please explain what you mean with this question? Are you referring to Mary the Mother of Jesus?

    Thanks Timothy for your questions and comments.

  89. on 29 Jan 2012 at 9:52 amXavier

    Dr Garza

    Jesus was simply saying that he existed in heaven and came down from heaven…I am not saying that he existed in the flesh but was God as spirit.

    Then how else would you explain the teaching in John 6 where Jesus says that he came down IN THE FLESH from heaven?

    Brown says that without the vowel points in Psalm 110 that Adonai is spelled the same as Adoni. The Hebrew is ADNY and both are spelled the same without distinction and without vowel points.

    Of course, we know that. But he is not dispensing with the MT vowel pointing as you are doing. So where exactly is he agreeing with you that the 2nd “lord” is Adonai and not adoni? Brown even makes the point that the 2 words are furthered distinguished via the SPOKEN form!

    Nobody denies that men were referred to as “Elohim” (judges) but never is a man called “the God” as Jesus was in Hebrews 1:8 by God himself.

    Heb 1.8 is citing Ps 45.6 which even most Evangelical trinis admit was addressed to the Davidic king:

    The king is clearly the addressee here, as in vv. 2-5 and 7-9…[this text should be taken] as another instance of the royal hyperbole that permeates the royal psalms. Because the Davidic king is God’s vice-regent on earth, the psalmist addresses him as if he were God incarnate. NET Bible

    Dr. I do not have a problem saying that Jesus is God or “the God” or even “God incarnate” in the biblical sense! But not the Orthodox sense. You are making a fatal mistake here of taking the text to literally and this is clouding the fact that when you interpret John 6.38 the way you do, it even goes against your own Orthodox understanding. I don’t even have a problem saying that God is the Father but in a bibglical sense, which would be a representational one, but not in an un-Orthodox sense like the Oneness do.

  90. on 29 Jan 2012 at 9:55 amXavier

    CORRECTION: You are making a fatal mistake here of taking the text too literally…

  91. on 29 Jan 2012 at 10:03 amXavier

    CORRECTION: I don’t even have a problem saying that Jesus is the Father but in a biblical sense, which would be a representational one, but not an un-Orthodox [ontological] one like the Oneness people do.

  92. on 30 Jan 2012 at 1:11 pmJaco

    Dr. Al Garza:

    One quick comment on your comparison of Jer.23 and 33. Jeremiah does not use the Hebrew word “sh’mo” in 33:16. Only Jer.23:6 uses that Hebrew word for naming the Messiah YHWH. You need to read the Hebrew text better. In Jer.33 Israel will PROCLAIM “yiqro” YHWH as her righteousness not naming her YHWH.

    No, first off, you argued from GRAMMATICAL GROUNDS. On grammatical grounds you have no case, since the expression in itself does not prove deity on the part of the one bearing the name. The identical expression is used, not only of the righteous Branch, but also of Jerusalem. In 33:16, Jerusalem would also be called “Yahweh our righteousness” because of the righteous branch. The presence of “shmo” in Jer. 23 is of no consequence otherwise and it is my contention that you are special pleading. The NET Bible (for one) also disagrees with you. Jerusalem will still be proclaimed AS Yahweh our Righteousness.

    But, to follow your argument, you need the expression, “called by the name” and you need the presence of the Name of God. Let’s see if your logic and hermeneutics add up:

    Gen 16:11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou [art] with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.

    2Sa 12:25 And he sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet; and he called his name Jedidiah, because of the LORD.

    2Ki 23:34 And Pharaohnechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim, and took Jehoahaz away: and he came to Egypt, and died there.

    2Ki 24:17 And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his father’s brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah.

    All of the occurrences above have the expression, “his name” followed by a theophoric name. None of these would render the bearers of the names deity. Now, the Trinitarian might say, Yes, but we need the WHOLE name of God in order to declare the brearer of the Name God. The first issue with this reply is that it’s an ad hoc argument. There is nothing in the Bible or the ancient writings that declares the bearer of the full name of God Yahweh Himself merely on the basis that the theophoric name contains the full name of God. In fact, we have in the Enoch writings Metatron and Yahoel being called “the little Yahweh.” Here is the precise identification Trinitarians need, but also the very occurrence they despise, since Yahoel and Metatron are both sh’lichim or representatives of Yahweh, acting in Yahweh’s stead. This is Hebraic functional identity, something completely different from the later Hellenistic/Latin ontological identity, precisely since functionality precludes ontology. This is the cognitive universe ancient Jews found themselves in – something the Hellenistic/Latin hybridisers detested, hence their resort to alien concepts about God and Christ. Thousands of Messianic Jews are deceived by this hybrid religion and blinded by their own piety. Messianic Judaism is pagan to the core and only has a facade of Hebraic heritage.

    To take this argument further, let’s see how inconsistent Trinitarians are. They would quickly point to theophoric names in which the full Name of God is itself absent and use that as proof of Jesus’ deity (whatever this means in Hebraic terms). These include:

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

    Matt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

    See, they insist on a full name in the case of Jer. 23:6, but settles with a partial or substitutive rendering of God’s name in the cases above. This is inconsistent and desperate hermeneutics at best.

    But is this insistence on the full name of God valid anyway? Most certainly not! Not only are places called by the full name of God, such as Yahweh-Nissi and Yahweh-Jireh (and no one would even think of deifying a mountain or an altar), but the shortened forms of God’s Name were just as valid an expression of the Name and an identification of God as the full Tetragram:

    Ps 68:4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name YAH, and rejoice before him.

    To the Psalmist, Jah was just as much a reference to God’s Name as the full Name itself. The doxological Halleluyah was a call to give praises to Yah and meant no less than just that: Praise Yahweh, you people! This makes the Trinitarian position look even bleaker, since these other forms of God’s name occur in theophoric names, such as Jehoshaphat, Jehonadab, Jehoiakim, etc. and deification of these human bearers of these names was never even considered. One moving goalpost after another, splitting one hair after another, just to glean SOME support of the Nicean/Chalcedonian heresy – the trinity is nothing more than just that!

    I don’t know what you’re cutting a pasting but even Anthony Buzzard admits that in Hebrews 1:8 God calls the Son “O Theos” and admits to this one instance.

    Cutting and pasting? I wish I was so lucky – I typed every single word…

    I am in full agreement with Anthony Buzzard. O Theos taken in isolation can refer to the Only True God, but also to old Satan (do I need to remind you of 2 Cor. 4:4?). You won’t argue that 2 Cor. 4:4 refers to God Almighty simply because you see “o theos,” will you??? What is more, this in itself is inconsequential, since the O Theos can be nominative or vocative, hence my references of theologians who agree with its vocative sense. Not only that, but even with the nominative, the understanding of O Theos would still be in line with what my sources say, putting that expression precisely within Second Temple Judaism and the concept of shaliach without defaulting to 4th and 5th century Christian hybrid creeds. So, you’ve got still no point anyway.

    The Father is not called out savior. It is YHWH God who is our savior.

    The Father is called Savior here:

    1Ti 1:1 . Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, [which is] our hope;
    [Here “God” is someone distinct from Jesus, so it can only refer to the Father]

    1Tim 2:3-5 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
    [Here “God” can only refer to the Father]

    Jude 25 To the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, [be] glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
    [“God” can only refer to the Father here.]

    Lk 1:32, 47 “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David…” And Mary Said, “My spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour”.
    [Since Jesus is the son of whom Mary calls Lord, the Most High, “God” can only refer to the Father.]

    Also The Father being in Jesus and Jesus being in the Father does not make them one person.

    That’s not my argument anyway, so I don’t know why you’re bringing it up. I know very well that Jesus and Yahweh won’t be one person simply because Jesus is “in” the Father and the Father “in” Jesus [you should know by now know that I use “Yahweh” and “Father” synonymously...]. But from a grammatical argument alone a literalist reading of this text could come to all kinds of weird conclusions and would grammatically still be valid. Just imagine adding another dimension to the text:

    John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I [am] in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

    But no-one is arguing this anyway and every linguist who is worth the paper his qualification is written on will agree that grammar and cognition should have a healthy interplay. Autism (and Trinitarianism) are instances where grammar is utilised at the expense of cognitive reality.

    Thomas proclaimed Jesus as HIS God and HIS Lord not the Father within Him. Nowhere does the context support your view on this. You are giving me your interpretation not a grammatical argument.

    First off, this is not my interpretation only but also that of some of the great theologians in the last and present century.

    Secondly, Thomas’ proclamation was after he saw the risen Jesus. Once again vocative, Thomas said to Jesus “My Lord and my God.” This begs the question, “In what way was Jesus Thomas’ Lord and his God?” (The very question one would ask when told, “be Jesus to your flock, Pastor.” Need I say how autistic people would understand this???)We have no choice BUT to interpret his words. YOUR INTERPRETATION is that Jesus shared God’s ousios or that Jesus was a person of God. THAT IS AN INTERPRETATION IN ITSELF. My interpretation is the one given by my fellow Monotheists and scholars above. The question is, “which interpretation is the valid one?” And there the arguments and the proofs point to the First Century Monotheistic model the ancient Jews and Christians shared in. It is also confirmed by the context, since Jesus explains it himself, as well as John’s own interpretive scheme, namely that Jesus “explained” God (1:18) and that seeing Jesus meant seeing God (14:9). Pure shaluach or agency language – something 4th and 5th century trinitarianism rejects in favour of Hellenistic philosophical concepts of ontology.

    Thomas’ exclamation is a dramatic conclusion, namely, that Jesus indeed explained God:

    ”God himself becomes visible in Christ, his image.” – A. Grillmeyer, Christ in Christian Tradition, p.25

    You said:

    So you’re telling me that trinitarian Greek and Hebrew scholars like Wallace, Metzger, Mantey, Young, Robertson, Archer, Kaiser etc. are not Great? Just scholars who only agree with you and are new to this subject in a historical standpoint? All the reformers and the Greek and Latin Fathers were wrong? I don’t think so.

    I could ask you the same questions regarding the scholars I cite. I could even tell you, 71.4% of the world are non-Christian. Are they all wrong? This is such a weak injunction. We can say for a fact that your Trinitarian scholars whose interpretive apparatus many times give them away as doctrinally biased, truly have a doctrine to defend – something you cannot say of any of the scholars I cited or will still cite. Regarding the Reformers, do you agree with every single thing the Reformers said? Luther and even Calvin were very careful on some points regarding the Trinity. Much, much more careful than some of you Trinitarians are… Greek and Latin Church Fathers? Many were Dynamic and Modalist Monarchians! Will you settle for that? I could return this question to you: Were they wrong? If so, then I agree with you. If not, then you’ll have to adopt their theology. If you’re not prepared to do that, then don’t expect of me to do it…

    You write to timothy:

    The whole of Psalm 110 is about the Messiah and verse 5 makes reference of him again as Adonai who is at the right hand from verse 1.

    And where is the conspiracy now??? There were no vowel points in the pre-Christian Hebrew texts, remember? Is the MT’s vowel pointing of ADNY in vs. 5 as Adonai good enough NOW??? You are very inconsistent and disingenuous with your interpretations, Mr. Al Garza. Your theories don’t add up.

    This is the very verse in Ps. 110 of the MT refuting your argument fully. For, if the Masoretes had a conspiracy and wanted to humanise the Messiah instead of retaining his divinity, then they slipped up miserably with this verse! This is unthinkable. In fact, this verse vindicates their credulity, PRECISELY BECAUSE the subsequent anthropomorphisms pose such a challenge to their theology. You have refuted yourself here.

    In the meantime, my points stand, since you could not engage my points intelligibly or persuasively. I am more than willing to engage you on whatever substantial rebuttal you can give on my points.

    Thanks,

    Jaco van Zyl

    P.S. My references to autism are not meant to insult. They are merely given to demonstrate how absurdly language can be interpreted on grammatical grounds alone. Trinitarianism does the same in many instances.

  93. on 30 Jan 2012 at 4:30 pmDr. Al Garza

    Xavier
    “Dr. I do not have a problem saying that Jesus is God or “the God” or even “God incarnate” in the biblical sense! But not the Orthodox sense. You are making a fatal mistake here of taking the text to literally and this is clouding the fact that when you interpret John 6.38 the way you do, it even goes against your own Orthodox understanding. I don’t even have a problem saying that God is the Father but in a bibglical sense, which would be a representational one, but not in an un-Orthodox sense like the Oneness do.”

    I am not a Oneness but a Trinitarian. Nowhere does it say Jesus came down in the flesh but the Bible does say Jesus existed in the very form of God. What form is that if it is not Spirit? If you do not have a problem saying Jesus is God or the God then we are in agreement.

  94. on 30 Jan 2012 at 5:19 pmDr. Al Garza

    Jaco

    1. “No, first off, you argued from GRAMMATICAL GROUNDS. On grammatical grounds you have no case, since the expression in itself does not prove deity on the part of the one bearing the name. The identical expression is used, not only of the righteous Branch, but also of Jerusalem. In 33:16, Jerusalem would also be called “Yahweh our righteousness” because of the righteous branch. The presence of “shmo” in Jer. 23 is of no consequence otherwise and it is my contention that you are special pleading. The NET Bible (for one) also disagrees with you. Jerusalem will still be proclaimed AS Yahweh our Righteousness.”

    I don’t know what Hebrew grammar books you are looking at but it bears much consequence to the text. Jer.23 identifies the Hebrew “his name” with suffix “sh’mo” back to YHWH while the Hebrew “Yiqro” goes back to “our righteousness” The context is clear on the Messiah being called YHWH and proclaimed Our Righteousness. Jer.33 has Israel proclaiming “yiqro” YHWH as her righteousness. Please check the grammar if you can with a Hebrew scholar. This was believed by ancient Rabbi’s who believed the Messiah would be called YHWH.

    2. “First off, this is not my interpretation only but also that of some of the great theologians in the last and present century.

    Secondly, Thomas’ proclamation was after he saw the risen Jesus. Once again vocative, Thomas said to Jesus “My Lord and my God.” This begs the question, “In what way was Jesus Thomas’ Lord and his God?” (The very question one would ask when told, “be Jesus to your flock, Pastor.” Need I say how autistic people would understand this???)We have no choice BUT to interpret his words. YOUR INTERPRETATION is that Jesus shared God’s ousios or that Jesus was a person of God. THAT IS AN INTERPRETATION IN ITSELF. My interpretation is the one given by my fellow Monotheists and scholars above. The question is, “which interpretation is the valid one?” And there the arguments and the proofs point to the First Century Monotheistic model the ancient Jews and Christians shared in. It is also confirmed by the context, since Jesus explains it himself, as well as John’s own interpretive scheme, namely that Jesus “explained” God (1:18) and that seeing Jesus meant seeing God (14:9). Pure shaluach or agency language – something 4th and 5th century trinitarianism rejects in favour of Hellenistic philosophical concepts of ontology.

    Thomas’ exclamation is a dramatic conclusion, namely, that Jesus indeed explained God:”

    “The Lord of Me and The God of Me” (Ho kuriov mou kai o teov mou).

    Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koine. Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. And Jesus accepts the words and praises Thomas for so doing.
    The personal possessive pronouns and the direct address of Thomas to Jesus is not what was seen inside of Jesus which is never mentioned in the text but what Thomas believe who Jesus was.

    3. “I could ask you the same questions regarding the scholars I cite. I could even tell you, 71.4% of the world are non-Christian. Are they all wrong? This is such a weak injunction. We can say for a fact that your Trinitarian scholars whose interpretive apparatus many times give them away as doctrinally biased, truly have a doctrine to defend – something you cannot say of any of the scholars I cited or will still cite. Regarding the Reformers, do you agree with every single thing the Reformers said? Luther and even Calvin were very careful on some points regarding the Trinity. Much, much more careful than some of you Trinitarians are… Greek and Latin Church Fathers? Many were Dynamic and Modalist Monarchians! Will you settle for that? I could return this question to you: Were they wrong? If so, then I agree with you. If not, then you’ll have to adopt their theology. If you’re not prepared to do that, then don’t expect of me to do it…”

    Where do you get your stats? About 90% of the population claims to be Christian. That doesn’t make them Christian but the pole was taken. Also where do you get you Church history from? The early Church after the apostles were still proclaiming Jesus as God all the way to the reformers and beyond. They were Trinitarians.

    4. “And where is the conspiracy now??? There were no vowel points in the pre-Christian Hebrew texts, remember? Is the MT’s vowel pointing of ADNY in vs. 5 as Adonai good enough NOW??? You are very inconsistent and disingenuous with your interpretations, Mr. Al Garza. Your theories don’t add up.”

    You just made my point with verse 5, thank you. The inconsistency in the text of putting Adoni in verse 1 and then putting Adonai in verse 5 which connects back to verse 1 makes my point. There was no distinction in the DSS concerning “ADNY” and it was used of God, angels and men. ADON is the root word that need to be addressed.

    5. “In the meantime, my points stand, since you could not engage my points intelligibly or persuasively. I am more than willing to engage you on whatever substantial rebuttal you can give on my points.”

    Jaco, like I said before, new scholarship is not correct scholarship. The historical position of the Church for the last 2 thousand years have been the Trinity and the deity of the Messiah with complete understanding of the texts that have now just come under attack within the last 150 years or so. Your joining of the re-interpretation and re-creation of terms is nothing new to the Church. The Greek and Latin churches plus all the Reformers on the nature of God are in complete harmony. Down to even the great scholars of Robertson, Metzger, Mantey, Bruce, Wallace, Young, Schaff, Archer, J.N.D Kelly, Latourette etc… I have been a teacher for over 20 years and have seen and heard it all before. Your arguments have been refuted for centuries. Your points might sound intelligent to you but they are nothing new to us.

    Thanks again for this discussion.

  95. on 30 Jan 2012 at 6:10 pmXavier

    Dr Garza

    Nowhere does it say Jesus came down in the flesh…

    If you take John 6.38 in its context that is exactly the meaning you’re giving it.

    If you do not have a problem saying Jesus is God or the God then we are in agreement.

    I don’t think so since you express those terms in a much more literal sense than we do. Jesus is God only in a representational sense. You cannot say Jesus is YHWH and the Father is YHWH since that would make 1 YHWH too many. I believe only the Father is YHWH as per the Jewish-Christian creed of the Shema [Deu 6.4; Mar 12.29].

  96. on 30 Jan 2012 at 6:15 pmJoseph

    Jaco,

    Messianic Judaism is pagan to the core and only has a facade of Hebraic heritage.

    Although this is a generalization, it does ring true. But, there are two sides of “Messianic Judaism” for many years now. The side being taken over by Christian pagan proponents looking to add a bit of Hebraic roots to their repertoire. And the Unitarian pro-Torah side that embraces Hebraic roots.

    BTW, I’m done writing my paper and plan to post it late tonight or tomorrow. Since I focus on the ADNY vocalization brought up by Dr. Brown in Judges, I would like to add a link to your paper on Psalm 110:1 – Trinitarian Arguments Challenged. Would that be ok? Also, was wondering if you were ever able to revise the paragraph about Psalm 110 being found in the DSS?

    I really love your paper, it was well done, and it’s a great conclusion to what I have written as it follows the along the same debate. :)

  97. on 30 Jan 2012 at 6:59 pmDr Al Garza

    Xavier

    1. “If you take John 6.38 in its context that is exactly the meaning you’re giving it.”

    Xavier, I believe in looking at the Bible as a whole and not just from the narrative of John. Paul, being a Jew and Pharisee, understood clearly that Jesus existed in the very form of God which you still haven’t comment on. That form is spirit according to John. We know he wasn’t talking about his flesh and never claimed he did.

    Thanks,
    Dr.Garza

  98. on 30 Jan 2012 at 7:03 pmDr Al Garza

    Jaco

    Here are some early quotes from the believers just after the apostles.

    Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.

    “O Lord God almighty… I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever” (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

    Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

    “In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever” (n. 7; PG 5.988).
    “We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.’ Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.” (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

    Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.

    “The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: …one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,’ and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all…’” (Against Heresies X.l)

    Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

    “We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation… [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

  99. on 30 Jan 2012 at 8:02 pmXavier

    Dr Garza

    I believe in looking at the Bible as a whole and not just from the narrative of John.

    So when John writes that Jesus “came down/out of heaven” it is not talking about his preexistence? If it is, how do you explain that teaching in John 6?

    And do you concede that Dr Brown does not agree with you concerning Ps 110.1?

  100. on 30 Jan 2012 at 8:19 pmDr Al Garza

    Xavier

    I already quoted Dr. Brown on the subject. Did you not read the quote from his book. I was making a point on the usage of the vowels. That is all. I don’t see any other problem with what I said.

    Jesus answers the confusion you are making in verse 63:

    “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”

    Again, compare the rest of scripture for the answers.

    Thanks

  101. on 31 Jan 2012 at 2:21 amJaco

    Joseph,

    Thanks for your kind words. I did revise my section on the DSS but the un-revised paper is still accessible on 21stcr.org. You are welcome to reference it still, maybe with a note on where the inaccuracy lies. I am refining it, though with footnotes and all, and it will soon be published in the Journal for the Radical Reformation.

    Thanks and blessings,

    Jaco

    BTW, be sure to send me a copy of your paper: talkingdonkey1981@gmail.com.

  102. on 31 Jan 2012 at 8:07 pmDr Al Garza

    Jaco

    I would love to read your paper and see where you are coming from if you don’t mind?

    DrAlGarza@aol.com

    Thanks

  103. on 01 Feb 2012 at 3:52 amJoseph

    I just posted a comment that contains a link. Can someone with admin abilities please approve?

  104. on 01 Feb 2012 at 8:32 amXavier

    Dr Garza

    Did you not read the quote from his book. I was making a point on the usage of the vowels. That is all. I don’t see any other problem with what I said.

    Yes, I read his book on this matter as I have quoted time and time again. And in post #82 you wrote the following:

    Brown states in his book on page 137 the usage of Adoni to YHWH himself by believing the Angel of the Lord is also YHWH.

    You are jumping to conclusions here since adoni is NEVER applied to YHWH. Just because angels are called adoni and they represent YHWH does not mean the title is used for YHWH.

    And then you wrote that Brown does not agree with Singer on the matter of the MT and its vocalization in regards to the word adoni. Yet, Brown says on pg. 135…

    [Jesus] simply stated that the text [Ps 110.1] indicated David called the Messiah his lord–which is exactly what Singer claims that la’doni means: “The correct translation…is ‘to my master’ or ‘to my lord’.” Precisely. That was Yeshua’s whole point.

    And John 6.63 still does not explain your interpretation of Jesus’ teaching about “coming down/out of heaven” in the flesh in John 6.38.

  105. on 01 Feb 2012 at 1:14 pmRon S.

    Joseph,

    I don’t see any pending comments from you with a link. Your last one was #102 above and there are no others from you besides the previous one before that (#95).

    I just sent you an email asking for a copy of your paper. If you’ll respond I’d be happy to post it here on KR.

    Thanks!

  106. on 01 Feb 2012 at 4:33 pmJoseph

    Hmm. Seems that the blog may have a spam plugin that automatically deletes certain posts with links. No prob, I sent the article to your email so you can post here on KR. Thanks.

  107. on 02 Feb 2012 at 12:58 amDr Al Garza

    Xavier

    1. “You are jumping to conclusions here since adoni is NEVER applied to YHWH. Just because angels are called adoni and they represent YHWH does not mean the title is used for YHWH.”

    My point is not just looking at the MT which is a later Hebrew but looking at the ancient Hebrew of the DSS and before. Adoni is an interpretation of the MT and does not reflect the ancient Hebrew. The ancient Hebrew is simply ADNY using the suffix “Yod” for “my” and the root word is simply ADN (Adon) which is used of God, angels and men. Jumping to conclusions is my point for you when you only interpret from the MT and not the ancient Hebrew script which goes back to the time of Jesus and beyond.

    2. “And John 6.63 still does not explain your interpretation of Jesus’ teaching about “coming down/out of heaven” in the flesh in John 6.38.”

    I thought I answered this question with Jesus saying that he was speaking of the spiritual not the flesh. he sums it all up at verse 63.

    Jesus answers the confusion you are making in verse 63:

    “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”

  108. on 02 Feb 2012 at 6:03 amJoseph

    Dr Al Garza,

    My point is not just looking at the MT which is a later Hebrew but looking at the ancient Hebrew of the DSS and before. Adoni is an interpretation of the MT and does not reflect the ancient Hebrew.

    This is a incorrect generalization that has been misrepresented to you by Dr. Brown and Dr. White. Sure the DSS are several hundred years before the MT. But how do you deal with the Targums that are pre 2nd century? Are you aware that the Targums as well as other MSS have their own specific way to say adoni and adonai just as the MT has laid out? If you say that the MT does not reflect the ancient Hebrew, then you are also saying that most other MSS before the MT also do not reflect the ancient Hebrew.

    Ron should be publishing my paper to this blog soon which delves into the evidence of MSS that support the MT vocalizations.

    And to put it into perspective, it’s not like there was the DSS and then the MT. We have many ancient MSS in between to fill the time gap from the two. I suggest reading my article when it’s published. I’ll post back here the link when it’s up.

  109. on 02 Feb 2012 at 9:44 amXavier

    Dr Garza

    Jumping to conclusions is my point for you when you only interpret from the MT and not the ancient Hebrew script which goes back to the time of Jesus and beyond.

    Who relies on the unpointed Hebrew? And why do you keep dispensing with the Septuagint where the 2 Lords are carefully distinguished from one another? And what about the spoken form? Do you really believe that Jesus and the Apostles everytime they quoted the verses said, “Adonai said to my Adonai”? If they did where is the outcry from the people hearing this? I mean, ‘YHWH said to my YHWH’? Really?!!

    I thought I answered this question with Jesus saying that he was speaking of the spiritual not the flesh.

    Then he is not saying that he literally came down/out of heaven?

  110. on 07 Feb 2012 at 12:26 amDr Al Garza

    Joseph

    I understand your point. My conclusions are not based on Brown or White. I study the Paleo-Hebrew first along with the DSS. The MT is not my authority. Paleo-Hebrew is the Hebrew of the prophets.

    I look forward to reading your paper.

  111. on 07 Feb 2012 at 12:32 amDr Al Garza

    Xavier

    1. Who relies on the unpointed Hebrew? And why do you keep dispensing with the Septuagint where the 2 Lords are carefully distinguished from one another? And what about the spoken form? Do you really believe that Jesus and the Apostles everytime they quoted the verses said, “Adonai said to my Adonai”? If they did where is the outcry from the people hearing this? I mean, ‘YHWH said to my YHWH’? Really?!!

    Paleo-Hebrew and the DSS are pointless in vowels. This was the language of the prophets up to the time of Jesus.

    I never said “YHWH said to my YHWH” That is a strawman argument. I said, when you look at ancient Hebrew like the Paleo-Hebrew, DSS and the MT you cannot make a distinction between them in spelling without the vowel points. Also in the MT in verse 5 of Psalm 110 you have Adonai at the right hand which falls back to verse 1. Something is wrong there.

    Also can you answer me this question? Who is the Rock in 1Cor.10?
    Is it Christ from the OT as it says or what?

  112. on 07 Feb 2012 at 3:43 pmSarah

    Dr. Al Garza,

    I never said “YHWH said to my YHWH” That is a strawman argument.

    To be clear, how to you interpret Psalm 110:1? “Adonai says to my Adonai”?

  113. on 07 Feb 2012 at 3:44 pmSarah

    Reposting with corrected blockquotes:
    ——————————————————–

    Dr. Al Garza,

    I never said “YHWH said to my YHWH” That is a strawman argument.

    To be clear, how to you interpret Psalm 110:1? “Adonai says to my Adonai”?

  114. on 07 Feb 2012 at 4:08 pmtimothy

    Sarah,

    see post # 87

  115. on 07 Feb 2012 at 9:39 pmDr Al Garza

    Sarah

    I look at Psalm 110:1-5 of course as Messianic but I also don’t jump to the conclusion that verse 1 is either Adoni or Adonai as well. When looking at Paleo-Hebrew and the DSS you don’t see how it was suppose to be pronounced. ADNY can be either Adoni or Adonai without the vowel points. Now when you look at how ADN is used, because it is the root word, you can see that ADN is used for God, men and angels. So in all fairness you can say that Psalm 110:1 can read:

    “YHWH says to my Adoni or Adonai”

    The prefix and the suffix does not change or alter the meaning of the root word Adon, “ADN”

    Also in verse 5 the MT it says Adonai is at the right hand which reflects back to verse 1.

  116. on 07 Feb 2012 at 9:46 pmXavier

    Dr Garza

    Paleo-Hebrew and the DSS are pointless in vowels. This was the language of the prophets up to the time of Jesus.

    Your comments are obvious to say the least. We all know this. I was asking about modern-day biblical scholars. Who among them relies on the unpointed Hebrew to do their exegesis? Who even learns unpointed Hebrew?

    Also in the MT in verse 5 of Psalm 110 you have Adonai at the right hand which falls back to verse 1. Something is wrong there.

    Again, your implying only what you seem unwilling to say. And that is your believe that v.1 actually reads: “Adonai said to my Adonai”, i.e., “YHWH said to my YHWH”. Why are you unable to admit what your proposing here?

    As for your last point, there are parallels/precedence for YHWH/Adonai being at the right hand of a human being: Ps 16.8; 109.31; 121.5. In neither case are we dealing with “God at the right hand of my God” since these other examples suggest otherwise.

  117. on 07 Feb 2012 at 9:54 pmDr Al Garza

    Anyone

    Can anyone tell me how 1Corinthians 10:1-5 speaks of the OT Israelites who drank from the spiritual rock which was YHWH in Exod.17:1-5, but Paul says it was Christ, how is this possible if Christ did not pre-exist and is only a man?

    Read Exod.17:1-5 and compare with 1Cor.10:1-5.

  118. on 07 Feb 2012 at 10:04 pmDr Al Garza

    Xavier

    1. Your comments are obvious to say the least. We all know this. I was asking about modern-day biblical scholars. Who among them relies on the unpointed Hebrew to do their exegesis? Who even learns unpointed Hebrew?

    I don’t know how you learned Hebrew but ancient Hebrew should be the first thing you learn especially the pictograph script. The ancient Hebrew is not the same as Modern Hebrew which you already know. In fact modern Hebrew uses the Aramaic square script for their alphabet. Its not even real the Hebrew script. The Aramaic script was adopted after the Babylonian captivity. I look for truth not modern scholarship which I am.

    2. As for your last point, there are parallels/precedence for YHWH/Adonai being at the right hand of a human being: Ps 16.8; 109.31; 121.5. In neither case are we dealing with “God at the right hand of my God” since these other examples suggest otherwise.

    That is your interpretaion but the context of the whole of Psalm 110 is Messiah being at the right hand not YHWH. So now you are assuming your interpretaion rather then letting the context interpret for you.

  119. on 08 Feb 2012 at 2:33 amTim (aka Antioch)

    Dr. Garza,

    Dunn argues that 1 Co 10:4 is allegory, and that makes much more sense to me.

    http://yahislove.blogspot.com/2011/06/james-dunn-on-1-corinthians-104.html

  120. on 08 Feb 2012 at 8:56 amXavier

    Dr Garza

    I don’t know how you learned Hebrew but ancient Hebrew should be the first thing you learn especially the pictograph script.

    Again, your stating the obvious to the point of sounding condescending everytime you rehash the same information. We all know this! But my questions were WHO relies on the unpointed Hebrew to do their exegesis? And WHO even learns the unpointed Hebrew when learning that language? Its like learning English without the vowels.

    So now you are assuming your interpretaion rather then letting the context interpret for you.

    I am only “assuming” what the textual evidence says and they harmonize perfectly when it comes to YHWH/Adonai being described at the right hand of a human being. Like the Davidic king/Psalmist in those other examples I gave you. But again, you have dodged my question…if that is your “interpreation” of Ps 110.1,5 why are you unable to admit what your proposing here? That the reading should actually be “Adonai said to my Adonai”, i.e., “YHWH said to my YHWH”.

    And please Doctor stop “teaching” us what we already know about the Hebrew text and answer my questions.

  121. on 08 Feb 2012 at 10:16 amSarah

    Dr. Al Garza,

    So are you saying Moses literally struck the pre-existent Jesus?

    Ex 17:6: “I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink.” So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel.”

    I am much more inclined to believe James Dunn’s interpretation that Tim aka Antioch shared in post #118.

  122. on 08 Feb 2012 at 12:52 pmXavier

    Sarah

    Here’s another good alternate interpretation to 1Cor 10.4:
    http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/1-corinthians-10-4b

  123. on 08 Feb 2012 at 9:28 pmJoseph

    Dr Al Garza,

    I understand your point. My conclusions are not based on Brown or White. I study the Paleo-Hebrew first along with the DSS. The MT is not my authority. Paleo-Hebrew is the Hebrew of the prophets.

    Isn’t White’s entire argument based upon the ancient DSS Hebrew? So what makes your position any different? Please explain.

    I don’t think you do understand my point for a couple reasons…

    First, I don’t see how the Paleo-Hebrew adds anything to your argument as there are DSS manuscripts that have both ADNY and the Paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton written within the same MSS together.

    Second, you keep saying that the adoni vocalization is merely a interpretation of the MT. That the ancient Hebrew didn’t have vowel markings, therefore, the Masoretes got it wrong in Psalm 110:1. I’m curious then, how you answer to the Targums, LXX, VetLat, ect in their agreement with the MT in regards to the differences of adonai and adoni? You seem to continue to ignore that many various manuscripts acknowledge the difference between adoni and adonai before the vowel markings in the MT were even created. Are you seeing where your argument is flawed here? In other words, you are only willing to accept a vowel-less Hebrew MS because it allows you to interpret as you please. If you don’t see it this way, others do.

    I look forward to reading your paper.

    You can read my paper here, I’d love to get your response… http://lhim.org/blog/2012/02/02/judges-6-and-the-hebrew-masoretic-vocalization-of-adny-trinitarian-arguments-challenged/

  124. on 08 Feb 2012 at 11:28 pmDr Al Garza

    Tim

    1. Dr. Garza,

    Dunn argues that 1 Co 10:4 is allegory, and that makes much more sense to me.

    Of course your going to agree with Dunn, he agree with your views. That does not answer the question in the passage. The link you gave states only his opinion on the text. He even quotes the correct usage of the Greek word for “follow” but then turns around and rejects it because it doesn’t fit his theology. Read below:

    A. “Although it is true that akolutheo can be translated as “accompany,” it should not be translated that way here, but would be better translated as “followed.” The vast majority of translations agree. As we have said, there is no verse in the Old Testament that records Jesus Christ traveling with the Israelites, so the translation “accompanied” does not fit with the rest of Scripture.”

    Paul says without question that it was Christ ( past tense) who followed the Israelites.

  125. on 08 Feb 2012 at 11:33 pmDr Al Garza

    Joseph

    I am not saying they got it wrong but only that they are giving their commentary on the passage by having it say Adoni.

    Also, Anthony Buzzard sent me an email regarding the LXX and the understanding of the early church on this passage. I would like you to read it because it states the opposite of what your saying in regard to the historical position. Anthony was trying to show the needed correction in one of the OT commentaries. I can send you the email if you like.

  126. on 09 Feb 2012 at 12:31 amDr Al Garza

    Joseph

    Psalm 110:1

    Part of the email states that it was because of the LXX that the misreading happened and the misreading came from Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho 56 and also by Irenaues. Then Jerome perpetuated it even more in the Vulgate.

    In a nutshell, it is blamed on the understanding and reading of the LXX that caused the problem. The reading of the LXX in uncials and replacing the Shem Hameforash/Tetragrammaton with KYRIOS in all the places caused major problems. This is why the early church believed the Adonai translation. They first believed in the deity of the Messiah and read back to the OT to find the places were it could be found from the LXX and not the Hebrew text.

  127. on 09 Feb 2012 at 2:12 amJoseph

    Dr Al Garza,

    I am not saying they got it wrong but only that they are giving their commentary on the passage by having it say Adoni.

    So any MSS that also supports a reading that gives a name other than God for the second Lord, or supports the MT in agreeing with a ‘adoni’ rendering, would also be considered just commentary in your eyes? I don’t quite understand what you are trying to say here?

    Again, I think you are confused and been led down the ignorant path to thinking that somehow the vowel-less Hebrew word ADNY is ambiguous. This is one of the points that Dr. Brown tried to argue by citing MSS discrepancies in Judges 6:13-15 in which I was able to refute in my article.

    Also, Anthony Buzzard sent me an email regarding the LXX and the understanding of the early church on this passage. I would like you to read it because it states the opposite of what your saying in regard to the historical position. Anthony was trying to show the needed correction in one of the OT commentaries. I can send you the email if you like.

    Psalm 110:1
    Part of the email states that it was because of the LXX that the misreading happened and the misreading came from Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho 56 and also by Irenaues. Then Jerome perpetuated it even more in the Vulgate.

    In a nutshell, it is blamed on the understanding and reading of the LXX that caused the problem. The reading of the LXX in uncials and replacing the Shem Hameforash/Tetragrammaton with KYRIOS in all the places caused major problems. This is why the early church believed the Adonai translation. They first believed in the deity of the Messiah and read back to the OT to find the places were it could be found from the LXX and not the Hebrew text.

    I’m having a hard time following you with the information given. Where do Anthony and I exactly differ? Why would the early Church believe the second Lord in Psalm 110:1 to be considered ‘adonai’ if the LXX MSS they were referring back to read ‘kurious mou’ ‘adoni’?

    Furthermore, the Targums, which were before the Triune-God revolution, support a ‘non-God’ second Lord reading, independent of the LXX. No conspiracy there…

    Psalm 110
    - Composed by David, a psalm. The Lord said in his decree to make me lord of all Israel, but he said to me, “Wait still for Saul of the tribe of Benjamin to die, for one reign must not encroach on another;[5] and afterwards I will make your enemies a prop for your feet.”

    - Another Targum: The Lord spoke by his decree to give me the dominion in exchange for sitting in study of Torah. “Wait at my right hand until I make your enemies a prop for your feet.”

    - Another Targum: The Lord said in his decree to appoint me ruler over Israel, but the Lord said to me, “Wait for Saul of the tribe of Benjamin to pass away from the world; and afterwards you will inherit the kingship, and I will make your enemies a prop for your feet.”

    The Aramaic word being used for the second Lord here is ‘rebon’ which is the equivalent to the Hebrew ‘adon.’ Unlike the DSS Hebrew, the Aramaic makes a alphabetical distiction between YY (adonai) and Reboni (adoni). Therefore, we know that in the ancient Hebrew, the vocalizations ‘adoni’ and ‘adonai’ weren’t simply ambiguous. I explain more of this in my article I gave you the link to in my comment #122 above.

  128. on 09 Feb 2012 at 10:00 amSarah

    Dr. Al Garza,

    Paul says without question that it was Christ ( past tense) who followed the Israelites.

    Paul also says in Hebrews 7:9-10 that it is possible for an unborn son to do something by means of his father’s actions.

    Hbr 7:9-10 NIV – “One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.”

    It seems to me you are applying Greek philosophical ideas to Paul’s writings, rather than Paul’s own Hebraic outlook.

  129. on 09 Feb 2012 at 10:04 amSarah

    Xavier, thanks for the link. Good info on the pages you and Tim shared.

  130. on 10 Feb 2012 at 2:06 pmtimothy

    Dr Al Garza,

    what is the paleo Hebrew verb

    “to be” (was-is-will be) ?

    and how should it be pronounced in English ?

  131. on 11 Feb 2012 at 8:27 amXavier

    Looks like the good doctor has had enough. :P

  132. on 12 Feb 2012 at 5:27 pmJaco

    Xavier, has he had enough? Oh, boy, just look at what I’m about to post :-D

  133. on 12 Feb 2012 at 5:31 pmJaco

    Sorry, everybody, for the delay in my answer. Life is starting to pick up speed again, and my time needs to be well-managed.

    Dr. Al Garza:

    I don’t know what Hebrew grammar books you are looking at but it bears much consequence to the text. Jer.23 identifies the Hebrew “his name” with suffix “sh’mo” back to YHWH while the Hebrew “Yiqro” goes back to “our righteousness” The context is clear on the Messiah being called YHWH and proclaimed Our Righteousness. Jer.33 has Israel proclaiming “yiqro” YHWH as her righteousness. Please check the grammar if you can with a Hebrew scholar. This was believed by ancient Rabbi’s who believed the Messiah would be called YHWH.

    You are making waaaaaay too much of this grammar and it is obvious that this text is being dissected to the bone to desperately secure a Trinitarian reading of some kind. Here is the final part of the text in reverse order:

    הזו – ומש רשא – וארקי הוהי ונקדצ
    Transliterated: v’zeh-sh’mo asher-yiq’roo, yhwh tzid’qenu
    Gloss: [and this] – [name of him] [which] – [he shall call him] [yhwh] [righteousness of us]

    NOTHING in the grammar necessitates what YOU and your fellow Niceans/Chalcedonians want the text to read, namely
    v’zeh-sh’mo yhwh, asher-yiq’roo tzid’qenu. Translated: and this is his name, Yahweh, which shall be called “our righteousness.”
    The demonstrative and the pronoun suffixes are inherently ambiguous. Your pushing this to mean that the Messiah will be given the Name Yahweh and that he will be called our righteousness, instead of the Messiah being given the compound theophoric name, yhwh tzid’qenu is at best desperate and at worst deceptive. Obviously you’ll have the support of your fellow Trinitarian preservers, but only since these are doctrinally biased.

    Then, from the LXX we find the following:

    Ieremias 23:6 “In his days Jouda will be saved, and Israel will encamp in confidence. And this is the name by which he [the Lord] will call him: ‘Iosedek among the prophets’” – Translated by Albert Pietersma and Marc Saunders

    Jeremias 23:6 (LXX): “In his days both Juda shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell securely: and this is his name, which the Lord shall call him, Josedec among the prophets.” – Translated by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851

    It is clear that the translators of the LXX in no way thought that the Messiah would receive the Name of Yahweh Himself. As with Ps. 110:1 where Yahweh speaks to someone else which in itself precludes the recipient of the oracle from being Yahweh Himself, where Yahweh calls this Branch, yhwh tzidqenu. The LXX is much more specific in its assignment of who says what and the doctrinally induced ambiguity on the Hebrew is finally resolved by the more dynamic Greek rendering. The Name the Messiah receives is treated as nothing more than other theophoric names and is rendered as a compound name, rather than a split elaboration (as you and others would want us to believe). This understanding is also my understanding and, unfortunately for your position, also the understanding the ancient Christians inherited.

    Then, commentators such as the NET Bible Commentary draw a synonymous parallel between 23:6 and 33:16. You and others cannot afford this inevitable similarity, hence your special pleading around every corner to evade this obvious and certain parallel. Note what the commentaries have to say:

    “The Davidic possibility is envisioned as a king who will practice righteousness as was required in 22:3 and rejected in 22:13-14…This king will embody righteousness, to which his very name will attest. It is perhaps intentional and ironic that the “real king” anticipated is called “Yahweh is our righteousness”, while the last king of the line up to 587 is Zedekiah (Yahweh is righteous). The coming king will be genuine “righteous,” whereas the remembered King Zedekiah is not at all an embodiment of righteousness. That king bore the name; the coming king will embody the reality. Footnote 16: ‘It is worth noting that the promise articulated here is taken up in the “Common Lectionary C” in the use of Jer. 33:14-16 during Advent. Quite clearly, the Church has handled the text with reference to Jesus.’” –Walter Brueggemann, A commentary on Jeremiah: exile and homecoming, p. 207

    “The interesting fact about this prophecy is that Jeremiah used a play on words to express his thought. Zedekiah’s name meant “Yahweh is my righteousness.” The One whom Jeremiah predicted would come was Yahweh’s true Righteousness. Human kings had failed. The One divinely sent would not fail.” – Holman Old Testament Commentary – Jeremiah, Lamentations, pp. 215

    “33:15-16 These verses are a prose parallel to the poetic messianic statement of 23:5-6 but with a slight difference in emphasis. The verses promise the restoration of the Davidic dynasty. ‘A righteous Branch’ of David’s family would do what is just and right, as contrasted with the many wicked kings who occupied the throne since David’s death. Under the leadership of this new ruler, Judah would be saved and the people would live in safety. The city would be given a new name: ‘The Lord our righteousness.’ In 23:6 the name was promised to the coming ruler, but here the name is given to the city. The meaning of the new name is that Jerusalem would finally become what God intended for it to be all along – a city noted for its righteousness…” The New American Commentary on Jeremiah, Lamentations, p. 301

    Clarke’s commentary quotes Dr. Bleyney who follows the LXX translation:

    Literally, according to the Hebrew idiom, ‘And this is his name by which Jehovah shall call, Our Righteousness;’ a phrase exactly the same as, ‘And Jehovah shall call him so;’ which implies that God would make him such as he called him, that is, our Righteousness, or the author and means of our salvation and acceptance. So that by the same metonymy Christ is said to ‘have been made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,’ 1 Corinthians 1:30.
    “I doubt not that some persons will be offended with me for depriving them, by this translation, of a favourite argument for proving the Divinity of our Savior from the Old Testament. But I cannot help it; I have done it with no ill design, but purely because I think, and am morally sure, that the text, as it stands, will not properly admit of any other construction. The Septuagint have so translated before me, in an age when there could not possibly be any bias or prejudice either for or against the fore-mentioned doctrine, a doctrine which draws its decisive proofs from the New Testament only.

    Commentary by Keil and Delizsch:

    But the rabbinical interpreters, headed by the Chald., take the name to be an abbreviation of a sentence; so e.g., Kimchi: Israel vocabit Messiam hoc nomine, quia ejus temporibus Domini justitia nobis firma, jugis et non recedet. They appeal to Jeremiah 33:17 and to other passages, such as Exodus 17:15, where Moses calls the altar “Jahveh my Banner,” and Genesis 33:20, where Jacob gives to the altar built by him the name El elohe Jisrael. Hgstb. has rightly pronounced for this interpretation. The passages cited show who in such names an entire sentence is conveyed. “Jahveh my Banner” is as much as to say: This altar is dedicated to Jahveh my banner, or to the Almighty, the God of Israel. So all names compounded of Jahveh; e.g., Jehoshua equals Jahveh salvation, brief for: he to whom Jahveh vouchsafes salvation. So Tsidkijahu equals Jahve’s righteousness, for: he to whom Jahveh deals righteousness. To this corresponds Jahveh Tsidkenu: he by whom Jahveh deals righteousness. We are bound to take the name thus by the parallel passage, Jeremiah 33:16, where the same name is given to Jerusalem, to convey the thought, that by the Messiah the Lord will make Jerusalem the city of Righteousness, will give His righteousness to it, will adorn and glorify it therewith.

    צדקנוּ is not to be referred, as it is by the ancient Church comm., to justification through the forgiveness of sins. With this we have not here to do, but with personal righteousness, which consists in deliverance from all unrighteousness, and which is bound up with blessedness. Actual righteousness has indeed the forgiveness of sins for its foundation, and in this respect justification is not to be wholly excluded; but this latter is here subordinate to actual righteousness, which the Messiah secures for Israel by the righteousness of His reign. The unrighteousness of the former kings has brought Israel and Judah to corruption and ruin; the righteousness of the branch to be hereafter raised up to David will remove all the ruin and mischief from Judah, and procure for them the righteousness and blessedness which is of God. – “What Jeremiah,” as is well remarked by Hgstb., “sums up in the name Jehovah Tsidkenu, Ezekiel expands at length in the parallel Ezekiel 34:25-31 : the Lord concludes with them a covenant of peace; rich blessings fall to their lot; He breaks their yoke, frees them from bondage; they do not become the heathen’s prey.” These divine blessings are also to be conferred upon the people by means of the righteous branch. What the ancient Church comm. found in the name was true as to the substance. For as no man is perfectly righteous, so no mere earthly king can impart to the people the righteousness of Jahveh in the full sense of the term; only He who is endowed with the righteousness of God. In so far the Godhead of this King is contained implicite in the name; only we must not understand that he that bore the name is called Jahveh. But that righteousness, as the sum of all blessing, is set before the people’s view, we may gather from the context, especially from Jeremiah 23:7 and Jeremiah 23:8, where it is said that the blessings to be conferred will outshine all former manifestations of God’s grace. This is the sense of both verses, which, save in the matter of a trifling change in Jeremiah 23:8, are verbally repeated from Jeremiah 16:14 and Jeremiah 16:15, where they have already been expounded.

    No Trinitarian interpretation is seen anywhere in commentaries such as A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah by William McKane, or Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible by James D.G. Dunn and John William Rogerson. As I have shown in my previous comment, bearing a theophoric name does not render the bearer thereof divine, much less identical to the One whose name is borne. The scholars above and others take Jeremiah 23:6 and 33:16 as parallels; the one name being given to the Messiah who would ensure Yahweh’s righteousness taking place (as opposed to Zedekiah’s failure) and the other to Jerusalem in which Yahweh’s righteousness would be seen. The significance of the name is identically used in both cases. Unless one has a doctrine to push, there is therefore no proof of divinity or identity with Yahweh in 23:6 whatsoever.

    Finally, and this is from a logical point of view, and not ignoring what I have written you on this subject in a previous comment, the Trinitarian conclusion does not follow from necessity even if the name of God is associated with the bearer of this compound name. This is so, simply since the Trinitarian argument assumes a non-Hebraic, culturally, theologically and cognitively alien concept of ontological identity rather than functional identity (cp. Ex. 7:1, 23:21). You Trinitarians ignore this central error all of you commit. This very point alone should settle the issue without discussing doctrinal sophistry any further.

    More to follow…

  134. on 12 Feb 2012 at 5:37 pmJaco

    Dr. Al Garza, you said:

    Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koine. Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. And Jesus accepts the words and praises Thomas for so doing. The personal possessive pronouns and the direct address of Thomas to Jesus is not what was seen inside of Jesus which is never mentioned in the text but what Thomas believe who Jesus was.

    No, your slippery slope fallacy is introduced by your words, “Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God.” You assume that you understand perfectly what Thomas meant and that that understanding follows by default. To the Nicean/Chalcedonian, this is an admission of the Trinity. To a Modalist, this was an identification with the Father. To the ancient Jew, this was an exclamation for seeing the glory of God in Jesus. However you want to look at it, Dr. Al Garza, this text needs interpretation. Whether its Nicean/Chalcedonian, adoptionist, modalist, monotheistic, patripassionist, this text requires interpretation. Yours is not as much at face value as it is to the modalist or everyone else.

    So Thomas’ words still beg the question, “When Thomas saw Jesus, he saw God. In what way was Jesus Thomas’ Lord and Thomas’ God?” And we’re back to square one where the interpretive apparatus of every expositor needs investigation.

    Niceans/Chalcedonians would love to make this sound like an utter proof of their 4th century invention. This is most certainly not the case, as I have demonstrated by the historical milieu Thomas, Jesus and their fellow Jews found themselves in. This was also confirmed by Jesus’ own words in John 14:9 which Thomas also heard, as he was in their company. Niceans/Chalcedonians reject functional identity and settle for the Greek-philosophical category of ontological identity. This is erroneous scholarship and it survives simply and solely due to religious motivation. It’s been artificially kept alive through brutal oppression and persecution and in our age of freedom suppressed voices are finally heard showing convincingly why the machines which kept this doctrinal monstrosity alive can be switched off now.

    You have not engaged me meaningfully on this text at all. You ignore the ancient cognitive universe of Jewish monotheists and you argue from silence, as if the absence of Jesus’ correction now suddenly confirms Niceanism/Chalcedonianism. Jesus was God’s glorious image and that is precisely how He and Thomas understood it to be, hence no correction required. Still no point and non-dogmatic scholars agree with me.

    You said:

    Where do you get your stats? About 90% of the population claims to be Christian. That doesn’t make them Christian but the pole was taken. Also where do you get you Church history from? The early Church after the apostles were still proclaiming Jesus as God all the way to the reformers and beyond. They were Trinitarians.

    Only about 2 billion people of the world’s population confesse Christianity (if we don’t distinguish between Catholicism and Protestantism). Do your math, Mr. Al Garza, and you’ll arrive at a percentage of only 28.6%. So, my question is, since majority is your issue here (you assert that the MAJORITY of the ancient church believed trinitarianism, the MAJORITY of the reformers were Trinitarian, “were they all wrong?” you asked) then certainly you should not be Christian yourself, since the MAJORITY of the world’s population is non-Christian! Weak, weak argument: argumentum ad populum. You should do better than that, Mr. Al Garza.

    The early Church would have been horrified at proclaiming Jesus as God Himself. Hellenistic categorical schemes and alien theosophies such as Gnosticism sabotaged the Early Church very soon after the apostles’ demise. NEVER did the apostles proclaim Jesus to be identical to Yahweh God. You have absolutely no proof of that. This idea of Jesus being God Himself was an alien infection only later injected into the Christian teaching. Historians such as Harnack, Rubenstein, Freeman and countless others all attest to this and by reason also to the horrendous error you and your fellow dogma defenders commit. More on this further down.

    You just made my point with verse 5, thank you. The inconsistency in the text of putting Adoni in verse 1 and then putting Adonai in verse 5 which connects back to verse 1 makes my point. There was no distinction in the DSS concerning “ADNY” and it was used of God, angels and men. ADON is the root word that need to be addressed.

    LOL! No, sir, sorry for you! This just shows how inconsistent you Trinitarians are in inventing excuses for damning evidence! You WANT the adoni in 110:1 to be adonai. You NEED the adoni to be adonai, else your weak and frail artificially quickened vegetable doctrine would die in an instant. So you resort to ad hominem attacks and invent a conspiracy. But, funny enough, there is no conspiracy only four verses later. Suddenly the writers of the MT were utterly oblivious of the monster they had to fight! My goodness, and you wonder why even Trinitarian academia laugh at people like you? No, there was no conspiracy. The distinction between the two lords were neatly drawn since pre-Christian times. Even the early LXXs containing the divine Name would have drawn the distinction and the First Century Christians would have read and heard this distinction from the Hebrew, the Greek, the paraphrases and the Synagogue. They would also have been aware of verse 5 where God is described in very anthropomorphic terms. This would be THE IDEAL TEXT to change from adonai to adoni, yet the so-called conspirators “risked their theology” and pointed it as a more difficult reading. Furthermore, it would only be fitting for Adonai to be at the Messiah’s and every other righteous person’s right hand! See here:

    Ps 16:8 . I have set the Yahweh always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
    Ps 73:23 Nevertheless I am continually with you: you have taken hold of my right hand.
    Ps 109:31 For he shall stand at the right hand of the poor, to save him from those that condemn his soul.
    Ps 121:5 The Yahweh is your keeper: Yahweh is your shade at your right hand.

    You have absolutely no point here, and you can deny this all you want, ‘till the cows come home. Your conspiracy theory fails and you sit with a psalm threatening the survival of your doctrinal patient.

    You continue:

    Jaco, like I said before, new scholarship is not correct scholarship. The historical position of the Church for the last 2 thousand years have been the Trinity and the deity of the Messiah with complete understanding of the texts that have now just come under attack within the last 150 years or so. Your joining of the re-interpretation and re-creation of terms is nothing new to the Church. The Greek and Latin churches plus all the Reformers on the nature of God are in complete harmony. Down to even the great scholars of Robertson, Metzger, Mantey, Bruce, Wallace, Young, Schaff, Archer, J.N.D Kelly, Latourette etc… I have been a teacher for over 20 years and have seen and heard it all before. Your arguments have been refuted for centuries. Your points might sound intelligent to you but they are nothing new to us.

    Mr. Al Garza, no scholarship will be good enough for people like you. As with Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Muslims, Trinitarian zealots have a unique and circular approach to also their cherished theology. They are fond of quoting scholars. They celebrate their out-dated banner-bearers of custom-made post-biblical theology. But when scholars (Trinitarian and non-trinitarian) scholars are quoted to show where you prove to be desperate, you start to whistle a different tune. To people like you and others, old scholarship is not new enough and new scholarship is not old enough. There are few things as cruel as the destruction of a cherished myth in the face of mounting and damning evidence. Cognitive dissonance has you react the way you do – pure psychology really. What is more, I don’t know WHICH scholarship you’re referring to when you say, that the Church’s position for the past 2000 years have been Trinitarian and the deity of Christ. The very necessity of councils such as those of Nicea, Chalcedon, etc., and the subsequent violent enforcement of successive sets of doctrinal clauses at different stages of its foetal development embarrass your conjecture above to utter ridiculousness. Some of your scholars above have been among those who have confirmed the “criticism” of certain of your make-fit texts often used to prove your doctrine. FF Bruce, for one, has been a favourite even for us non-trinitarians in demonstrating how wrong most of you are. These Nicean/Chalcedonian banner-bearers above also have their share of critics, so you have no reason to feel warm and fuzzy about your post-biblical invention, really.

    You say: “Your joining of the re-interpretation and re-creation of terms is nothing new to the Church.” Ahem, excuse me, but you blokes are the ones re-interpreting and re-creating terms. You NEED an anthropological distinction between “person” and “being.” WHERE ON EARTH DO YOU FIND THIS IN SCRIPTURE? And you dare call me re-interpreting and re-creating new terms? Where did you do your studying that you don’t even know the philosophical and religious hair-splitting over REINTERPRETED and RECREATED (or should I say newly-invented) categories of homoousios and homoiousios? You demonstrate an ignorance of the disputes surrounding Jesus’ “two natures” and the wrestling between proponents of this idea on the one hand and Monophysitists and Adoptionists on the other. The Antiochian fathers in particular had a more adoptionistic understanding of Jesus. Clear-cut, fully developed and highly sophisticated Nicean/Chalcedonian-like Trinitarianism since the time of the apostles??? In your dreams!

    You say: “The Greek and Latin churches plus all the Reformers on the nature of God are in complete harmony.” We’ll see about that. Your absolutist approach to this issue is clearly again simply wishful thinking. I’ll demonstrate where even the “Greek and Latin churches,” as seen by their Fathers show fundamental differences with your later-developed doctrine. More on this later.
    You said: “I have been a teacher for over 20 years and have seen and heard it all before. Your arguments have been refuted for centuries. Your points might sound intelligent to you but they are nothing new to us.” Need I remind you, Mr. Al Garza, that your theology has been refuted for centuries. The difference is that, since your Sun-worshipping hero, Constantine, abused his power to legalise Niceanism at the expense of all other rival theologies, any dissenters or opponents of your theology were brutally persecuted, tortured and murdered. There writings were destroyed in an attempt to protect the feeble, yet heavily guarded hybrid theology of the Trinity. This legacy you’ve inherited, Mr. Al Garza, is Watchtower-like censorship times ten…you’d make a pretty good Jehovah’s Witness, really – all the cultic elements are there. I challenge you or any of your Trinitarian compadres to bring your so-called “proofs” anytime. I’ll show them to be lacking seriously – firstly by your own Trinitarian scholars, then by mine, then by consistent Scriptural hermeneutics and then by formal logic. Slowly but surely this candy-coated Trinitarian idol is crumbling down, and many former Trinitarians join our ranks in pulling the plug on this artificially sustained hybrid religion.

    More to follow…

  135. on 12 Feb 2012 at 5:43 pmJaco

    Dr. Al Garza,

    You’re getting waaaaaaay too excited about the “apostolic Fathers.” The first reason is, since apostatising influences have crept in very early in Church history. The first sign of apostasy was a RE-INTERPRETATION and RE-CREATION (you’ll regret ever stirring this point) of inherently Hebraic categories in Hellenistic terms. This is what Harnack has to say about it:

    The Apologists laid the foundation for the perversion/corruption [Verkehrung] of Christianity into a revealed teaching. Specifically, their Christology affected the later development disastrously. By taking for granted the transfer of the concept of Son of God onto the preexisting Christ, they were the cause of the Christological problem of the fourth century. They caused a shift in the point of departure of Christological thinking—away from the historical Christ and onto the issue of preexistence. They thus shifted attention away from the historical life of Jesus, putting it into the shadow and promoting instead the Incarnation [i.e., of a preexistent Son]. They tied Christology to cosmology and could not tie it to soteriology. The Logos teaching is not a ‘higher’ Christology than the customary one. It lags in fact far behind the genuine appreciation of Christ. According to their teaching it is no longer God who reveals Himself in Christ, but the Logos, the inferior God, a God who as God is subordinated to the Highest God (inferiorism or subordinationism).

    And, of course, you can also reject Harnack as yet another inconvenient critic of your doctrinal sacred cow.

    But, to demonstrate how heterogeneous the early church truly was and how desperate your and other trinitarians’ hopes are in finding a homogeneous, fully developed and sophisticated Trinitarian doctrine of Christ “since the apostles,” inform yourself of the following:

    Shepherd of Hermas (first or second century, read in churches along with holy scripture, Origen claimed this to the the Hermas in Ro. 16:14)

    The Shepherd of Hermas, a strange allegory written sometime in the second century, had a great vogue in orthodox circles and was even included in some copies of the New Testament (it is found in the Sinaitic Codex). The theology of the Church must have been very elastic at a time when such a book could enjoy popularity and implicit, if not explicit, ecclesiastical sanction, for its Christology does not seem to square with any of the Christologies of the New Testament, or with those of contemporary theologians whose occasional documents have reached us. The Shepherd speaks of a Son of God; but this Son of God is distinguished from Jesus. “That Holy Spirit which was created first of all, God placed in a body, in which it should dwell, in a chosen body, as it pleased him.” This is Martini’s translation. F. C. Conybeare renders the passage: “God made His Holy Spirit, which pre-existed and created all creation, to enter and dwell in the flesh which He approved.” In this text the Holy Spirit appears to be a divine substance. But we must not suspect Patripassionism. The “flesh” is spoken of as a person who “walked as pleased God, because it was not polluted on earth.” “God, therefore, took into counsel the Son and the angels in their glory, to the end that this flesh might furnish, as it were, a place of tabernacling (for the Spirit), and might not seem to have lost the reward of its service. For all flesh shall receive the reward which shall be found without stain or spot, and in it the Holy Spirit shall have its home.” This passage appears to make the “tabernacling” of the Holy Spirit in Jesus a reward for the purity of his life. Jesus then becomes divine through the power of God, after consultation with the Son of God, who elsewhere in The Shepherd is identified with the Holy Spirit. “The most venerable angel,” “the glorious angel,” “the holy angel” are titles that Hermas gives to Jesus in his allegory; but it is understood that the angelic status of Jesus is not his by nature. His labours on earth to save and to cleanse have gained him a co-inheritance with the Holy Spirit, God’s primary Son, so that Jesus now is the second Son of God. -A. D. Howell-Smith Jesus Not a Myth, pp. 120-121)

    Papias (125 A.D.) was undoubtedly non-trinitarian:

    The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature, and that, moreover, they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in due time the Son will yield up his work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, “For he must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” For in the times of the Kingdom the righteous man who is on the earth shall forget to die. “But when He says all things are put under him, it is manifest that He is excepted Who did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subjected to him, then shall the Son also himself be subject to Him, Who put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” – Fragments of the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord.

    The Christian philosopher Aristides writes ca. 125 A.D.:

    Now the Christians trace their origin from the Lord Jesus Christ. And He is acknowledged by the Holy Spirit to be the son of the Most High God, who came down from heaven for the salvation of men.(Apology, 2).

    For they know God, the Creator and Fashioner of all things through the only-begotten son and the Holy Spirit, and beside Him they worship no other God. (Apology 15)

    Someone who was an Adoptionist was Paul of Samosata, who wrote,

    Having been anointed by the Holy Spirit he received the title of the anointed (i.e. Christos), suffering in accordance with his nature, working wonders in accordance with grace. For in fixity and resoluteness of character he likened himself to God; and having kept himself free from sin was united with God, and was empowered to grasp as it were the power and authority of wonders. By these he was shown to possess over and above the will, one and the same activity (with God), and won the title of Redeemer and Saviour of our race.

    Origen, in Dialogue with Trypho, makes clear that there were Christians who did not subscribe to Jesus’ pre-existence, even hi s divinity: Here, Chapters 48, 49:

    And [the Jew] Trypho said, “…Resume the discourse… For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man of man, this [assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish.”
    And I [Justin] replied to this, “I know that the statement does appear to be paradoxical, especially to those of your race… Now assuredly, Trypho,” I continued,”[the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly [i.e. before his conception] as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin. But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father’s will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends,” I said, “of our race [i.e. Christians], who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have [now] the same opinions as myself should say so; since we were enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself.”
    And Trypho said, “Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man[born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He[the Christ].”

    Clement was firmly non-trinitarian:

    1Clem 46:6
    Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that was shed upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ?

    1Clem 59:3
    [Grant unto us, Lord,] that we may set our hope on Thy Name hich is the primal source of all creation, and open the eyes of our hearts, that we may know Thee, who alone abidest Highest in the lofty, Holy in the holy; who layest low in the insolence of the proud, who settest the lowly on high, and bringest the lofty low; who makest rich and makest poor; who killest and makest alive; who alone art the Benefactor of spirits and the God of all flesh; who lookest into the abysses, who scanest the works of man; the Succor of them that are in peril, the Savior of them that are in despair; The Creator and Overseer of every spirit; who multiplies the nations upon earth, and hast chosen out from all men those that love Thee through Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, through whom Thou didst instruct us, didst sanctify us, didst honor us.

    1Clem 59:4
    We beseech Thee, Lord and Master, to be our help and succor. Save those among us who are in tribulation; have mercy on the lowly; lift up the fallen; show Thyself unto the needy; heal the ungodly; convert the wanderers of Thy people; feed the hungry; release our prisoners; raise up the weak; comfort the fainthearted. Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art the God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pasture.

    1Clem 64:1
    Finally may the All seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ, and us through Him …that they may be well pleasing unto His Name through our High priest and Guardian Jesus Christ,through whom unto Him be glory and majesty, might and honor, both now and for ever and ever. Amen.

    1Clem 65:2
    The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all men in all places who have been called by God and through Him, through whom be glory and honor, power and greatness and eternal dominion, unto Him, from the ages past and forever and ever. Amen.

    Does this sound consistently and homogeneously Trinitarian since the apostles? Certainly not.

    Pseudo-Clementine (dated between 180 and 220 A.D.) Recognitions 2:42, written by Jewish Christians who did not immerse themselves in Hellenistic ways of thinking: “Therefore the name God is applied in three ways: either because he to whom it is given is truly God, or because he is the servant of him who is truly; and for the honor of the sender, that his authority may be full, he that is sent is called by the name of him who send.”

    Let’s see how the Didache describes the relation between Father and son:

    And concerning baptism, baptize as follows: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water. And if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else is able, but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. (7).
    We thank You, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your servant. To You be the glory for ever.(9).
    We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your servant, to You be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your Kingdom for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. (9).
    We thank You, Holy Father, for Your holy name you that made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which you revealed to us through Jesus Your servant. Glory to You forever and ever. You, Almighty Lord, have created all things for Your own name’s sake, You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You, but to us You freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your servant. Above all things we thank You that You are might. Glory to You forever and ever. (10).

    This sounds awfully Unitarian to me! But, since you Trinitarians like equivocating, not only where it comes to God the Father, but also where it comes to Tertullian’s use of “tri-unity,” there’s a surprise for you. See, especially since you stated with so much conviction that your highly developed and sophisticated Nicean/Chalcedonian doctrine can be clearly traced back to the apostles and that all early writers agree with every particle of it, allow me to show you how Tertullian would have fled for his life had he written the following AFTER your Nicean/Chalcedonian revelations from heaven:

    In his letter Against Praxeas, he states:

    Chap. IX. “Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son.”
    Chap. VII. “And while I recognize the Son, I assert his distinction as second to the Father.”
    Chap. III. vv. 1. “The majority of believers, are STARTLED at the Dispensation (of the Three in One)…They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods…While the Greeks actually REFUSE to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation” (of the Three in One).

    Not only was Tertullian’s doctrine an unpopular and unheard of doctrine, it also denies the co-equality your version of the Trinity insists on. So, Tertullian is not your guy, sorry…

    Oh, yes before I conclude; while you like the 3rd century Rabbi Kahana in his expectation that the Messiah’s Name would be YHWH (again equivocating since the Messiah would simply bear a name as the angel in Ex. 23:21 did, without making him Yahweh himself), I’d prefer the understanding of R. Joseph Albo of Toledo of the 13th century who wrote:

    The Scripture calleth the Names of Messiah also: YHWH Zidkenu, because He is the Mediator through Whom we shall get the righteousness of YHWH. –Sepher Ikkarim 28:54

    Thanks for discussing,

    Jaco van Zyl

  136. on 16 Feb 2012 at 8:16 pmJoseph

    Great responses, Jaco. You have a great way of structuring your arguments into cohesive order. I was hoping that perhaps Dr. White or Dr. Brown would show up to defend their position rather than Dr Al Garza doing the duty for them.

  137. on 17 Feb 2012 at 3:03 amJaco

    Joseph,

    Thank you. Dr. White hardly ever responds. And when he does, it’s more like brushing over the issues at hand with more over-generalisations and equivocations so that no coherent engagement ever takes place. As for Dr. Brown, he is just as repetitive and when in a corner, simply refers one to his second volume on Jewish objections. Maybe they think they’re smart, but this kind of argumentation does not bring about conviction, especially when a dilemma of faith is experienced (and surely is among thousands and thousands of uncertain trinitarians). Better arguments always triumph and faith in fabulous beliefs is eventually lost among those who seriously want to worship God in truth and with their “whole mind.”

    Thanks again,

    Jaco

  138. on 15 Jun 2012 at 8:33 amJan Dominic

    Joseph,

    Hi there. I was investigating on how I can unearth the “original” interpretation of Psalm 110:1. Luckily, I stumbled upon this thread. I really would like to know your explanation about Psalm 110:1. I was wondering if you can allow me to have a soft copy of your research paper on Psalm 110:1. Your paper would really be helpful on my search for the truth. Thanks a lot!

  139. on 16 Jun 2012 at 8:16 pmwriter42

    Can someone here who denies Christ’s divinity please explain how they understand these verses:

    Hebrews 1:1-2 :In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

    Hebrews 1: 10-12:

    (of His Son)

    He also says,

    “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
    and the heavens are the work of your hands.
    11 They will perish, but you remain;
    they will all wear out like a garment.
    12 You will roll them up like a robe;
    like a garment they will be changed.
    But you remain the same,
    and your years will never end.”

    John 17:5

    And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

  140. on 22 Jul 2012 at 9:17 pmAnthony Buzzard

    My point (pardon the pun) about Adoni in Ps. 1101:1 goes like this. The MT shows no signs of corruption. Adoni in all of its 195 occurrences never means GOD. Thus in the Psalm we have YHVH speaks to adoni, my lord (not Lord). The word is not adonai, which would mean that YHVH speaks to GOD!
    There is no evidence of corruption in the Hebrew Bible at this verse, but we have the check and balance of the LXX which renders ADONI as kurios mou. Kurios mou renders ADONI scores of times. The NT text is secure as kurios mou. Therefore the Messiah is not God, but my lord.
    James White tried to throw us off track by pleading two exceptions: He pointed out that in 2 verses in Psalms ADONAI is rendered as kurios mou. He is right, but he did not tell you why the exceptions occurred. In both of the 2 verses in Pss. David is addressing a single person with a double title. He repeats his address to that ONE PERSON. But in every case where a human being (not God) is involved, or where two persons, of whom one is God, are involved, as in Ps. 110:1, kurios mou translates ADONI (just as we have it). This is the standard address to someone who is not GOD. Thus White has first to plead that the pointing in Ps 110:1 is corrupt (no evidence) and then assuming that it ought to read Adonai (which it does not) he tries to show in two exceptions that adonai can appear as kurios mou. His attempt obviously fails. The MT is adoni, and adoni (195 times) refers to non-Deity. The two exceptions in the Psalms (you will have fun looking them up!) are exceptions for the good reason that one addressee with a double title is involved. In Ps. 110:1 GOD speaks to another. Here kurios mou (found also in the quote in the inspired Greek NT) represents ADONI.
    If anyone wants to work on the exact stats, please write to me at anthonybuzzard@mindspring.com This is matter of huge consequence in deciding who God is and who Jesus is.
    Note too that White says that there is no pointing in the written texts. But he forgets the NT which gives us kurios mou (translating ADONI) and that Jerome in the Vulgate knows the word ADONAI! These texts were read aloud long before the points were added. Adoni is the great discovery ready to break with a spectacular splash on the public. Broadcast this far and wide. Ps. 110:1, the great key to truth.

  141. on 23 Jul 2012 at 4:25 amMike Gantt

    Anthony,

    Does the fact that your view of Ps 110 differs from that of Jame White cause the two of you to view Luke 6:46 any differently?

  142. on 23 Jul 2012 at 2:36 pmtimothy

    Mike Gantt,

    Pardon me, for inserting this information.

    Luke 6:46 is included in important doctrinal scripture (IMHO I do not agree that Jesus Christ is GOD). However a double vocative(even very strong in Martin Luthers bible) marks how important the words of Jesus are in the passages.

    I remember something from kindergarten Sunday school about little pigs building houses on rock and sand foundations.

    LHIM has a class about determining whether Jesus or YAHWEH are ment for the lord translations in the NT.

    Here is a section from the class notes:

    New Testament Usages of “LORD”/”Lord” – Greek Kurios
    Verse English English Hebrew Estrangelo Spanish
    Ref# KJV NASB NT Aramaic Peshitta NOTES
    Lk 4:12 Lord LORD hwhy 0yrm YAHWEH
    Lk 4:18 Lord LORD hwhy 0yrm YAHWEH
    Lk 4:19 Lord LORD hwhy 0yrm YAHWEH
    Lk 5:8 Lord Lord ynda yrm Señor
    Lk 5:12 Lord Lord ynda yrm Señor
    Lk 5:17 Lord Lord hwhy 0yrm Yahweh
    Lk 6:5 Lord Lord Nwda hrm Señor
    Lk 6:46 Lord Lord Nwda yrm Señor
    Lk 6:46 Lord Lord Nwda yrm Señor
    Lk 7:6 Lord Lord ynda yrm Señor
    Lk 7:13 Lord Lord Nwda 9wsy Jesús
    Lk 7:19 -.-.- Lord uwsy 9wsy Jesús

    http://lhim.org/resources/classes.php?id=29

    Timothy

  143. on 24 Jul 2012 at 5:37 pmRay

    As I read Psalm 110:1, it seems to me that the two different Lords, are one Lord.

  144. on 24 Jul 2012 at 6:19 pmtimothy

    Ray,

    Here is Psalm 110:1 from Jesus quote in Matthew 22:44 from the
    “Hwai’i Pidgin” New Testament version.

    Matthew 22: (HWP)
    44 ‘Da Boss,
    He tell my Boss,
    “Come ova hea, sit down”!

    So it is clear that two different Boss are involved!

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22&version=HWP

    Timothy 8)

  145. on 24 Jul 2012 at 9:28 pmRay

    Together the two Lords of Psalm 110:1 are one as also in Psalm 45.

    Timothy, my KJV seems to read a bit differently than your “HWP” version, enough so that I wonder if they are of differing spirits.

    I say that Jesus is God. He is the Father. He is the holy Spirit, and I say these things by comparison. I don’t believe it to be necessarily wrong to do so.

    I believe we should all strive to use the word of God for the purposes of the Word.

  146. on 24 Jul 2012 at 9:59 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Yahweh is addressing the Messiah in Ps. 110:1. Adoni, my lord, has been mistranslated in most English versions (not all) as my Lord instead of correctly “my lord.” Adoni, my lord, is the classic title of honor for the king. Adoni is never (all 195 times) an address to Deity. Why all the fuss about such an obvious thing? Adoni is non-Deity and Adonai/YHVH is the one Deity. No one imagined, in the NT community, that Jesus was YHVH. That would make an unthinkable two YHVH’s.
    Peter used this precious verse to prove that Jesus was elevated to the supreme position as “lord,” ie the “my lord” of the Psalm. In desperation Dr. White tried to invent a conspiracy to say that ADONI was incorrect as the Jews pointed the word. For this there is no evidence. “My lord is the inspired NT version, and “my lord” is for the Messiah, as Elizabeth knew weil when visitiing “the mother of my lord” (Luke 1:43). ADONI is never a title for God!
    If you listen to the NT community of the first century, you will hear how simple and real all this is for them. But once the ugly fingers of philosophy intervened with the “church fathers” chaos has ensued. when non-biblical language was imposed on the precious documents resulting in the obvious “mess we are in.”

  147. on 25 Jul 2012 at 12:17 amtimothy

    Ray,

    There are bibles written in many different world languages so that all peoples may receive the WORD of GOD.

    Native speakers of Hawai‘i Pidgin numbered around 600,000 in 2011, 100,000 to 200,000 with low proficiency in standard English. Nonnative speakers are estimated at between 300,000 and 400,000. They live in Hawaii, Alaska and the United States mainland. Alternate names are Pidgin, Hawai‘i Creole, and Hawai‘i Creole English.

    The language enjoys vigorous use. It is the native speech of about half of those born or brought up in Hawaii, regardless of racial origin.

    These all are American people and receive the same holy spirit when they believe in Pidgin or Hawai’i Creole English.

    The same YAHWEH(Da Boss) giver and the same
    spirit of truth/comforter/lord(Boss)!

    You will see here that the verse in Luke 1:43 uses[Boss Mudda] for the same [the mother of my lord]….(from post # 146 above AB)

    Luke 1:
    43 But why dis good ting happen to me, dat you wen come by me, an you goin be my [Boss mudda]?!

    The beauty of looking at this American English dialect is one sees that their meaning for lord is “Boss”. And Jesus Christ is to be obediently followed just as an employee *does just what the Boss says to do*.

    In Matthew 22:44 YAHWEH is called *Da Boss* and my lord is my Boss. Two distinctly different beings.

    Here is link to the Hawai’i Pidgin Bible, again:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Hawaii-Pidgin-HWP/#books

    BTW…Hawai’i Pidgin can be heard being spoken on television series:
    *Dog the bounty hunter*

    Timothy

  148. on 25 Jul 2012 at 4:24 amMike Gantt

    Anthony,

    From which commandments of Jesus are we exempted if we read Luke 6:46 as “Why do you call me ‘lord, lord’ and do not do the things that I say?” instead of “Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord’ and do not do the things that I say?”

  149. on 25 Jul 2012 at 5:47 amJaco

    Timothy,

    Ray,

    Here is Psalm 110:1 from Jesus quote in Matthew 22:44 from the
    “Hwai’i Pidgin” New Testament version.

    Matthew 22: (HWP)
    44 ‘Da Boss,
    He tell my Boss,
    “Come ova hea, sit down”!

    Try and pick more productive conversations. Don’t sweat the small stuff, don’t be bothered by every little barking dog. Some people are better left in there Harry Potter world…

  150. on 25 Jul 2012 at 6:40 amRay

    Timothy, thank you for that information about another language I knew nothing about. When I read it, it sounded rather vulgar to my ears.

    When men speak in my neighborhood such things as “Come ova hea, sit down.”, it may come across quite differently as it may in some other part of the world.

    This is why I wondered about what spirit it was of. I didn’t know there was such a thing as a Hwai’i Pidgin New Testament. I was wondering if you were making it up.

    Anthony,
    It seems to me that Thomas for one made it clear at least once that I know of, that he compared Jesus to God and considered him to be equal with him in many respects. (John 20:28) Do you agree?

  151. on 25 Jul 2012 at 6:49 amRay

    Anthony, Do you take the position that God spoke to one who did not yet exist in Psalm 110:1, and also that David proclaimed the same, confessing that he (David) himself served a Lord who at that time did not yet exist?

  152. on 25 Jul 2012 at 8:15 amMike Gantt

    The argument on this blog between Trinitarians and Unitarians seems to be over the lip service we ought to give God. I can’t imagine God being very interested. Rather, I think He’s looking for the sort of living sacrifices described in Rom 12:1ff.

    In other words, if the point of the blog is being “kingdom ready” shouldn’t it be primarily concerned with obeying and serving the King – irrespective of his, or His, ontology?

    This is what it must be like when British officials debate internally about how to treat Queen Elizabeth, the classic example of a monarch for whom lip service is, practically speaking, all the service there is.

    Perhaps you are more interested in obeying the King than it appears. I hope so.

  153. on 25 Jul 2012 at 11:38 amtimothy

    Mike Gantt & Jaco,

    Bless you two too!

    Do you mean not to do or to do Romans 12:16 (kjv)?

    16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.

    John 13:
    34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

    8)

  154. on 25 Jul 2012 at 12:26 pmMike Gantt

    Timothy,

    Is adherence to Eph 4:15 not a worthy motive?

    Eph 4:15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,

  155. on 25 Jul 2012 at 2:02 pmtimothy

    Mike Gantt,

    For sure, keeping in context with this long compounded sentence:

    Ephesians 4:
    11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

    12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

    [to plant and water so GOD can give the increase(auxano)]

    13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

    [when? at the first resurection: 1 Corinthians 15:
    22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
    23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.]

    14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

    15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
    [1 Corinthians 11:
    1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.]

    16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

  156. on 25 Jul 2012 at 2:33 pmMike Gantt

    Timothy,

    Speaking the truth in love that we might become more like Christ is a timeless directive.

  157. on 25 Jul 2012 at 8:03 pmRay

    Unity or Control?

    What will be be about?

  158. on 25 Jul 2012 at 9:10 pmtimothy

    Mike Gantt and Ray,

    Ephesians 5: (kjv)
    2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

    1 Samuel 16:
    7 (b) : for the LORD(YAHWEH, Da BOSS) seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the
    LORD(YAHWEH, Da BOSS) looketh on the heart.

    agape love conquers *ALL*

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usxi3mk1k3g&feature=related

    Timothy

  159. on 27 Jul 2012 at 1:16 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Ps 110:1 is a prophetic oracle and David was looking forward to the Messiah. The Messiah had not yet come into existence (the beginning of his existence is detailed in Matt and Luke 1). Acts 2:36 shows how the session at the right hand came about. It was at the ascension of Jesus. In Ps 80 we have a reference to “the man of God’s right hand” and he is called the Son of Man. This merely confirms the ADONI of Ps. 110:1 which is never a title of Deity (all 195 times). The whole point of Jesus as the Messiah is lost if he really was originally not God!
    Luke 1:35 provides the obvious definition of him as Son of God– by miracle in Mary.

  160. on 27 Jul 2012 at 1:19 pmAnthony Buzzard

    My apologies for a very stupid typo on my part above. I meant of course “The whole point of Jesus as the Messiah is lost if he really was originally God” (I mistyped as ‘not God’)
    Anthony

  161. on 27 Jul 2012 at 2:05 pmtimothy

    Jaco,

    You wrote:

    “Timothy,

    Try and pick more productive conversations. Don’t sweat the small stuff, don’t be bothered by every little barking dog. Some people are better left in there Harry Potter world…”

    Apostle John wrote:

    3 John: (nasb)
    10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.

    Matthew wrote:

    Matthew 15: (nasb)
    24 But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

    25 But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, “Lord, help me!”

    26 And He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”

    27 But she said, “Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”

    28 Then Jesus said to her, “O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed at once.

    Jesus Christ said:

    Matthew 19: (nasb)
    14 But Jesus said, “ Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

    Apostle Peter said:

    Acts 5: (nasb)
    29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

    Apostle Paul wrote:

    2 Corinthians 5: (nasb)
    18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,

    19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

    2 Timothy 4: (nasb)
    4 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:

    2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.

    3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,

    4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

    5 But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

    Bless You Jaco!

    Timothy

  162. on 27 Jul 2012 at 2:37 pmtimothy

    Anthony Buzzard,

    you write rightly:

    “Ps 110:1 is a prophetic oracle and David was looking forward to the Messiah. The Messiah had not yet come into existence (the beginning of his existence is detailed in Matt and Luke 1). Acts 2:36 shows how the session at the right hand came about. It was at the ascension of Jesus.”

    And even more, *the man, Jesus Christ* did not exist before,
    *the first man, ADAM*.

    1 Corinthians 15: (nasb)
    45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

    46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.

    47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.

    48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly.

    49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

    First there was the first ADAM. Then came the second ADAM,
    *Jesus Christ*. The second Adam was not there helping GOD create the First Adam.

    Bonus:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bQnxlHZsjY

    Timothy

  163. on 27 Jul 2012 at 5:18 pmSarah

    Timothy,

    The second Adam was not there helping GOD create the First Adam.

    Well said!

  164. on 27 Jul 2012 at 5:39 pmMike Gantt

    Sarah,

    Of whom then does the prophet speak in Micah 5:2?

  165. on 27 Jul 2012 at 7:19 pmtimothy

    Ray, (this is written to Ray only, OKAY!?)

    Matthew 2: (nasb)
    6 ‘ And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah,
    Are by no means least among the leaders of Judah;
    For out of you shall come forth a Ruler
    Who will shepherd My people Israel.’”

    and Hawai’i pidgin

    Matthew 2: (HWP)
    6 ‘Eh! You Betlehem guys, ova dea Judah side!
    All da leadas inside Judah
    Tink Betlehem importan.
    Cuz from dea goin come [one leada].
    He goin take care [GOD]ʼs peopo,
    Da Israel peopo.’ ”

    [one leada]=my BOSS=Jesus Christ

    [GOD]=GOD(DA BOSS=YAHWEH)

    my BOSS(Jesus Christ) and GOD are not the same beings

    GOD is Da BOSS(YAHWEH)

    and my BOSS is leada(Jesus Christ)

    *my BOSS* is not *DA BOSS*

    my BOSS is our BOSS(Timothy and Rays)
    our BOSS is a human being just like us(Timothy and Ray)
    our BOSS is the *second Adam*
    our BOSS was killed and DA BOSS raised him from the dead
    our BOSS is the first resurrected human being
    our BOSS is now a spiritual man
    our BOSS is sitting on right side of DA BOSS in heaven
    our BOSS is coming back to raise us into a spiritual man

    Ray, try to give this some concentration: We will be living in Paradise, here on Earth, with *our leada*our BOSS*Jesus Christ*and be
    **DA BOSS’s peopo**

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=KTVoXXpqDbk&NR=1

    Timothy

  166. on 28 Jul 2012 at 9:45 amSarah

    Mike,

    Micah 5:2 is a prophecy about Jesus Christ. And Micah 5:4 reminds us that YHWH is the God of Jesus:

    “He shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD [YHWH], in the majesty of the name of the LORD [YHWH] his God.”

  167. on 28 Jul 2012 at 11:33 amMike Gantt

    Sarah,

    Yes, but I was wondering how you squared verse two’s “His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity” with a rejection of His preexistence.

  168. on 28 Jul 2012 at 1:16 pmSarah

    Mike,

    Here’s a summary quote from an article that thoroughly analyzes Micah 5:2:

    “There is nothing here about a Messiah originating in eternity. The force of the entire passage is about the Davidic King Messiah being born in Bethlehem, the home of Jesus’ ancient ancestors where his genealogical lineage began in ancient times.”

    http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/Micah5_2.html

  169. on 28 Jul 2012 at 2:17 pmMike Gantt

    I share the author’s disregard for trinitarian doctrine (http://bit.ly/LUZa2M), but his dismissal of “His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity” strikes me as arbitrary and contrived. For example, he spends time discussing whether this reference could mean before creation or concurrent with creation but then says “This writer does not believe Jesus existed as a person until his birth in Bethlehem.” With respect to preexistence, it doesn’t matter whether Jesus existed before the creation or concurrent with it. The point is that the verse seems clearly to suggest that Jesus existed before His human conception, and that’s all the preexistence per se means. As for his statement of belief, it’s an assertion, not an explanation or justification. I get that he doesn’t think the phrase means Jesus preexisted, but he doesn’t cogently explain why.

  170. on 28 Jul 2012 at 6:21 pmSarah

    Mike,

    In my opinion the author provided a solid and reasonable interpretation of the verse. In Matthew 2:6, the priests and scribes refer to Micah 5:2 as predicting the Messiah and King would be born in Bethlehem. They do not substantiate the later Greek philosophical idea that it refers to the Messiah’s pre-existence.

    Would you agree with me that the word “Genesis” means beginning? And would you also agree that Adam, whose beginning is described in the book of Genesis, did not consciously pre-exist his entry into the world? If you would agree with these propositions, consider this verse (I put the original greek in bold):

    Mat 1:18 Now the genesis of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

  171. on 28 Jul 2012 at 7:00 pmSarah

    Mike, I won’t post further on pre-existence in this thread out of respect for the original topic. There are a few threads devoted to preexistence, though, if you’d like to carry on the conversation.

  172. on 28 Jul 2012 at 7:20 pmMike Gantt

    Sarah, if you’ll direct me to one of the posts on preexistence you have in mind, I’ll be glad to respond to you there.

    In the meantime, I’ll say that I have no interest in substantiating “the later Greek philosophical idea” of preexistence. I am not a philosopher and I’ve never studied philosophy. And I’ve already said that I don’t believe the trinity doctrine; it’s unbiblical and actually anti-biblical.

    I only say that a simple reading of Micah 5:2 leaves me uncomfortable saying that the one being described in that verse had no existence whatsoever prior to his human conception and birth – to which, by the way, I deem Matthew to be referring in his first chapter when he used the word genesis. Though that word is used only five times in the New Testament, it is translated four different ways in the NASB, one of the most literal English translations we have. I don’t think it behooves us to suggest that Matthew was using it to foreclose the possibility that the Messiah had some kind of existence prior to being conceived in Mary’s womb.

  173. on 29 Jul 2012 at 11:21 amTim (aka Antioch)

    Mike,

    Does Ephesians 4:4 mean each of us pre-existed?

  174. on 29 Jul 2012 at 11:46 amMike Gantt

    Tim (aka Antioch),

    I don’t see how Eph 4:4 speaks to the preexistence of anyone.

  175. on 30 Jul 2012 at 3:01 amTim (aka Antioch)

    My mistake – meant Ephesians 1:4.

    For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

  176. on 30 Jul 2012 at 8:12 amMike Gantt

    Tim (aka Antioch),

    I don’t read this verse as speaking to the preexistence of Christ or of us. Rather I read it as speaking of the preexistence of God’s plan of redemption – preexistent to creation, that is. In other words, creation was wrought with redemption in mind.

    Our salvation through Christ was not an afterthought to what happened in the garden of Eden.

  177. on 30 Jul 2012 at 11:06 amTim (aka Antioch)

    Mike – I agree with you. So why wouldn’t Micah 5:2 be expressing a similar concept?

  178. on 30 Jul 2012 at 11:37 amMike Gantt

    Tim (aka Antioch),

    Because Micah 5:2 speaks personally of the one who would rule, and says that “his goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity” (NASB) Note that the “goings forth” are “his.”

    Thus Eph 1:4 speaks of the plan while Mic 5:2 is focused on the protagonist of the plan.

  179. on 30 Jul 2012 at 2:05 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    Mike,

    In looking at other translations of this passage, I find it confusing to pin down what the author is saying. For example, the Conntemporary English Version says:

    But the Lord will choose one of your people
    to rule the nation—someone whose family goes back to ancient times.

    In the footnote it says, ‘whose kingdom is eternal’. That has a drastically different meaning. In short, this verse has many renderings and even the common ones are unclear to me as to what is being said. I think your read is a fair interpretation but it is not something I would feel comfortable basing a doctrine on given the variety of alternate translations.

  180. on 30 Jul 2012 at 3:30 pmMike Gantt

    Tim (aka Antioch),

    I agree that it is possible to find translations which do not support the idea of the “ruler” himself having a prior existence, as in the case of the CEV. This, however, is just the problem with such paraphrastic translations. That is, they tend to make certain interpretive choices before the reader ever comes to the scene.

    For this reason, I tend to rely on the more literal translations (e.g. NASB, ESV, KJV, ASV), and you may have noticed that they are all fairly consistent on the point in question.

    Moreover, it is not though this is the only verse in the Bible that speaks to Christ’s preexistence. Though I can’t help remembering that the apostles talk about Jesus ascending to the right hand of God on the basis of a single OT verse…and this turns out to be the most oft-quoted OT verse in the NT! So, I try to never underestimate the power of a single verse.

  181. on 30 Jul 2012 at 6:55 pmSarah

    Mike,

    Though I can’t help remembering that the apostles talk about Jesus ascending to the right hand of God on the basis of a single OT verse…

    Correct me if I misunderstood, but didn’t you say you believe Jesus and the Father are really the same person? And that God just temporarily assumed the identity of Jesus? If that’s the case, how would you interpret Ps 110:1 in terms of who is who?

  182. on 31 Jul 2012 at 4:28 amMike Gantt

    God is who God was; Christ is who He became. This change was not temporary – it was eternal.

    Thus we may understand Ps 110:1 as “The [old] Lord said to [the new] Lord…” Christ is our eternal Lord, is He not?

  183. on 31 Jul 2012 at 12:03 pmtimothy

    Mike Gantt,

    This is nothing but your PHILOSOPHY/illogical:

    “God is who God was; Christ is who He became. This change was not temporary – it was eternal.

    Thus we may understand Ps 110:1 as “The [old] Lord said to [the new] Lord…” Christ is our eternal Lord, is He not?”

    My Paraclete tells me: (kjv)

    Proverbs 24:
    21 My son, fear thou the LORD(YAHWEH) and the king(Jeshuah): and meddle not with them that are given to change:…..

    Romans 1:
    23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God(YAHWEH) into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

    25 Who changed the truth of God(YAHWEH) into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator(YAHWEH), who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    Malachi 3:6
    For I am the LORD(YAHWEH), I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

    Timothy

  184. on 31 Jul 2012 at 12:36 pmMike Gantt

    timothy,

    Are you saying that Christ is not your eternal Lord?

  185. on 23 Aug 2012 at 9:39 pmAnthony Buzzard

    I am disappointed that the debate over Ps. 110:1 is perceived as a debate between myself and Dr. White!
    Who, I want to ask, has ever argued, as does Dr. White, that there is a corruption in the vowel points at Ps. 110:1?
    White wants you to believe that the original read: “The Lord YHVH speaks to the Lord God (ADONAI).” That would be God speaking to God, and this is positively not what that verse says. I pointed out early on that the proof that adoni, and not adonai, is the second lord is shown by the Greek LXX and inspired Greek NT, which render adoni as kurios mou (rightly).
    Dr. White thought he had found a way out! He said that Ps. 16:2 LXX translates ADONAI as kurios mou. He is right, but he produced a false parallel. He was comparing two different situations. In Ps. 16:2 there is a reference to God alone, one Person is addressed with a double address. In that rare situation kurios mou can render adonai. But there are 439 occs. of adonai, and YHVH to look at! Dr. White did not mention these.
    The rule is this. Whenever YHVH is mentioned in connection and contrast with ADONI, my lord, the my lord is invariably not GOD! Adoni is a superior who is not Deithy. Just look through the 195 occs of adoni, my lord, and you will see this easily.
    This issue is HUGE since Ps. 110:1 is the NT’s favorite verse by far from the OT. It defines the relationship between the One God and “not-God,” but my lord, adoni.
    I Tim. 2:5 sums up this easy matter, reflecting Ps. 110:1, as “one God and one mediator between God and Man, the Man Messiah Jesus.” Jesus, speaking to the high priest referred to the one at the right hand (Ps. 110:1) as the Son of Man, which does not mean GOD. Stephen saw the same Son of Man at the right hand! (Acts 7) Ps. 110:1 will eventually have its day.
    God spoke in Ps. 80 of His “right hand MAN.” All this goes back to the prophetic oracle in Ps. 110:1 which conditions the whole NT view of God in relation to His begotten Son.
    If you will look at the prestigious ISBE, under the article Lord, you will find “the form adoni, my lord, a royal title is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title ADONAI.
    This truth needs to be trumpeted everywhere. Strong’s concordance hides the adoni, adonay difference! That little word adoni (my lord) needs to come out of hiding. At present Ps. 110:1 is a crime scene and the elephant is obvious. My lord the Messiah is a supremely exalted human being, not GOD. There is only one God, the Father, and no other but HE! Jesus is the Messiah, Son of God, of Mary and of David. Tell everyone about him.

  186. on 24 Aug 2012 at 4:29 amtimothy

    Anthony Buzzard,

    You concluded:

    **This truth needs to be trumpeted everywhere………………………….

    My lord the Messiah is a supremely exalted human being, not GOD. There is only one God, the Father, and no other but HE! Jesus is the Messiah, Son of God, of Mary and of David.**

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXw3LgmGUI8&feature=related

    Timothy 8)

  187. on 24 Aug 2012 at 12:23 pmAnthony Buzzard

    I am grateful to Sean for allowing this important discussion to continue. The facts in Ps 110:1 (I think there may have been an earlier misreporting here): “Yahweh (the Lord God) gives a prophetic oracle to my lord.”
    Dr White as far back as 1998 in email to me believed that the Greek “to kurio mou” (to my lord) would be exactly the same in the LXX as “to kurio” (to the Lord, Adonai). The facts are dead against this. “L’ADONAI” (to the Lord) occurs 11 times in the Hebrew Bible and you can (please do) look them up and see that the Greek LXX is always “to kurio,” (to the Lord) never “to kurio mou” (to my lord). It is just factually wrong to say that the LXX does not distinguish between the Lord God and a human superior.
    Secondly Dr. White tried to say that in the DSS you cannot tell the difference between ADNY for ADONAI (Lord) and ADNY for ADONI (lord).
    The point he missed was the that these verses were read aloud! And Jerome (in the Vulgate– look it up) and Origen (in his Hexapla) use the Greek form ADONAI! How did they know the word, if it was not well known?
    But here is the clincher that in Ps. 110:1 there is no corruption in the Massoretic pointing. The NT confirms the Greek as “to kurio mou” (to my lord). The NT is quite right.
    If you will look up “to kurio mou” (to my lord) in the OT you find it regularly refers to a non-Deity superior. Dr. White found two exceptions! He pointed out that in Ps. 16:2 and Ps.35:13, kurios mou translates ADONAI. He is right. But what he did not notice is that in both those exceptions, one person not two is in question. Ps. 16:2 has “you said to the Lord (to kurio) you are my Lord (kurios mou). Because the word “lord” refers to the one God, a single Person, the Greek varies kurios and kurios mou, for reasons of style. Ps. 35:23 is similar. God is addressed as “My God and my Lord” (kurios mou). One Person.
    These exceptions do not affect in any way the masses of verses where God (Yahweh) and adoni (my lord, kurios mou) are distinguished. Kurios mou (my lord) is a non-Deity figure distinguished from another Person, the Lord God. This the obvious case in Ps. 110:1. “Yahweh speaks to kurio mou,” “to my lord,” l’adoni. The Hebrew is exactly what we would expect in view of the pervasive usage of adoni (195 times). There is no reason to suspect any confusion or corruption. Dr. White produced a false parallel and was comparing oranges with apples. Two exceptions do not make the rule.

    Confirmation comes in the NT in other ways. Elizabeth is excited to meet “the mother of my lord” (Lk 1:43, cp Ps. 110:1) and Jesus is the Lord’s (Yahweh’s) Messiah in 2:26. Jesus obviously understood the lord at the right hand to be the Son of Man (Mark 14:62), and Stephen did not imagine the Lord God to be at the side of the Lord God! He saw the Son of Man (the Human Being) at the right hand in Acts 7:56. Stephen was unaware of any corruption of Ps. 110:1.
    The NT creed is perfectly clear and easy in I Tim. 2:5, where “there is one God, ie the Father and one mediator between God and Man, the Man Messiah Jesus.” God is going to judge mankind throught that same Man (Acts 17:31). The Bible says “there is one God, the Father,” never “there is one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
    Augustine had to forge Jn 17:3 to force a binity into that unitary monotheistic creed of Jesus (read his Homilies on John)
    Finally I recommend Dr. Murray Harris’ relevant warning about treating the Hebrew text with respect: In the famous International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, he says in the article “Lord” (Vol. 3, p. 157): “The form adoni (my lord), a royal title, I Sam 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from adonai used over 130 times of YHVH, especially in Pss. and Isaiah.”
    The world is in dire need of simplicity and clarity about who God and Jesus are. Christianity is the only world religion which begins by discarding its own founder’s creed (Mk 12:29). Ps. 110:1, as used by Jesus to settle all issues, can help to put this right.

  188. on 27 Aug 2012 at 6:00 amDr Ali

    Great discussion or i should say a through evaluation of Psalms 110:1.

    Thanks to all who participated in this and shared their views on this important subject , specially brother Jaco.

    Sir Anthony Buzzard !!! vow !! , excellent points !.

    Sir i admire you and have a great respect for you for the knowledge you have and the way with crystal clarity you present them .

    God bless you sir and also people participating here for excellent points.

    Sir i saw your debate with Dr James White and Dr Michael Brown ,your position on Psalms 110 was spot on in the debate .

    Your points

    1) The Jews were discussing this verse for David , or Abraham or Melchizedek

    AND

    2) Jesus before citing this verse in Mark 12:35 confirms there is only Lord in Mark 12:29 .

    These points are spot on sir and should remove any doubt concerning the meaning of this verse.

    I have my own extensive study on this topic , i want to share with people on this blog .

    In my study iam finding that this verse POINTS MORE TO DAVID and Jesus Christ being the object of this verse is less appealing to me .

    I want to know what are the views of people on this blog regarding this.

  189. on 04 Mar 2013 at 8:38 ambarney

    Shalom,

    Dr. Anthony Buzzard’s nonsense and Scripturally unsupportable claim for an EXCLUSIVE “non-deity” Hebrew “adoni” respective of Ps. 110:1 is crushed by the credibly acclaimed Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) Hebrew lexicon.

    On pg. 11 of their published BDB works respective to the Hebrew “adoni” they CLEARLY declare that both the Josh. 5:14 and Jdgs. 6:13 “adoni” Passages are “THEOPHANIC angels” – hence, a Theophany.

    Therefore, from ANY respectable and credible dictionary source the word THEOPHANY is legitimately defined as, “an appearance and presence of GOD or god to man.” Hence, a DEITY.

    Moreover, a THEOPHANY does NOT mean the appearance of a CREATED angel speaking for and on behalf of GOD either as Dr. Buzzard insists, but rather the literal GOD HIMSELF appearing in the form of a man in the presence of mortal/human man.

    So PLEASE – NO MORE Dr. Anthony Buzzard’s Ps. 110:1 Hebrew “adoni” EXCLUSIVELY a non-deity nonsense.

    Therefore, who should we theologically believe Dr. Anthony Buzzard and his likeminded and confused colleague Dr. Herbert Bateman OR should we believe the well established and credible BDB lexicon?

    barney

  190. on 04 Mar 2013 at 12:05 pmJas

    barney
    I see no reason to believe either one. Neither understand The Yhwh or lessor Yhwh

  191. on 04 Mar 2013 at 5:55 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Dr Ali

    Thanks so much.

    The NT uniformly and across the board, applies this to the Messiah Jesus. So for us Jesus is the authority and the whole NT.

    Ps. 110:1 has YHVH giving a prophetic oracle to ADONI, my (non-Deity) lord.

    So for Christian believers Jesus is the final court of appeal.

    Thanks for your encouraging remarks

  192. on 05 Mar 2013 at 3:42 amWolfgang

    Dr. Ali

    In my study iam finding that this verse POINTS MORE TO DAVID and Jesus Christ being the object of this verse is less appealing to me .
    I want to know what are the views of people on this blog regarding this.

    my study of this passage in Psa 110 has led me to understand the passage to be prophetic of the coming Messiah. David was a prophet, and as such he did write prophetically about the Messiah to come …

    Acts 2:29-30
    29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
    30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne

    In a confrontation with the Pharisees, Jesus also speaks of the same truth:

    Mt 22:41-46
    41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
    42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
    43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
    44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
    45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
    46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

    Thus, my understanding of the passage in Psa 110 is that it was a prophetic declaration by David regarding the promised Messiah to come.

  193. on 05 Mar 2013 at 4:45 amTim (aka Antioch)

    What strikes me about Psalm 110 is the subordinate role of the second Lord. The first Lord does all the work while the second Lord sits. For the two Lords to be co-equal and co-eternal, you have to invent the doctrine of ‘functional subordination’, because that doctrine is not presented anywhere in scripture.

    What also just struck me – ‘sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’. If the two Lords are equal, shouldn’t this be our enemies?

  194. on 22 Nov 2013 at 1:06 pmBenjamin

    Some say the the vowel markings for Adonai/Adoni were preserved through oral tradition. I sincerely doubt it, due to the fact that the book of the law was FOUND when the temple was being restored during the reign of Josiah in the seventh century B.C.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%2022:8-13&version=NIV

    The fact that the book of the law wasn’t familiar to the people of that time, who had been engaging in idolatrous worship of foreign gods for literally generations, indicates that the likelihood that the vowels were all correctly preserved is very minimal.

    We need to use context to determine which is meant, Adonai, which would signify God, the Eternal Father, or Adoni, which would signify Jesus Christ, as man, or perhaps merely David or another king, mitigating or eliminating this chapter from consideration as a messianic prophecy.

    In the subsequent analysis, let us put aside all assumptions about what we think we know regarding who is who. I will use the abbreviation “A” to denote Adonai/Adoni, “D” for David, who we will assume to be the author, and “J” for Jehovah. I use the following source for the hebrew words:
    http://studybible.info/IHOT/psalm%20110

    Note: I don’t believe that verb-subject order is an established fact, throughout the Hebrew texts. http://ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.com/category/word-order/

    I also find it obvious, to the point of needing no supporting evidence, that OT scriptures often change subjects from verse to verse without rhyme or reason. (Hence the appearance of “A or D”, “A or J”, and “D or J” in the following analysis.)

    Also, authors occasionally speak of themselves in the third person.

    V1: J. tells A. to sit at J.’s right hand until J makes the enemies of A into A’s footstools.

    V2: Either J will send the rod of A or D’s strength out of Zion to rule in the midst of A or D’s enemies… OR the rod of A or D’s strength will send J out of Zion to rule in the midst of A or D’s enemies.

    V4. J has sworn and will not repent.

    V5. A, at J or D’s right hand, will strike through kings in the day of A or J’s wrath (not necessarily the same someone in both cases).

    OK, this post is getting pretty long, I’m going to post it and follow up the analysis in an additional post.

  195. on 22 Nov 2013 at 2:14 pmBenjamin

    1. J. has authority over A, else J. would not be in a position to grant A the position of honor at his right hand.

    2. Either J. has authority over the rod of A/D’s strength, to send that rod where he wills… or the rod of A/D’s strength has authority over J. to send him where he wills.

    The first case is the traditional interpretation of the verse, J will send the rod of A’s strength out of Zion. The second interpretation would either require the rod of A’s strength or D’s strength to exercise authority over J, which makes little sense unless that rod is also a person.

    This would then state that the rod of D’s strength, possibly Adonai, would send J out of Zion. This makes little sense in light of verse 1, where J is shown to have authority over A, UNLESS verse 1 speaks of Adoni and verse 2 is referring to Adonai. I feel a more detailed analysis of the rhyme of this psalm would be necessary to find a definitive answer as to this point.

    3. The second half of verse four, mentions the fact that J. does not repent specifically in relation to A or D being a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. I don’t have any problem with either interpretation, personally.

    4. It seems extra strange to infer that A is at D’s right hand, so we will disregard that possibility. A is at J’s right hand, as in verse 1. This verse could be speaking of Adonai, prophetically, or Adoni (David) at J’s right hand.

    In conclusion, I actually think this was meant to have both meanings, both with David in the place of Adoni and with Christ in the place of Adonai. That’s what makes a great song, right? Multiple meanings? :)

  196. on 22 Nov 2013 at 2:32 pmJaco

    Naa, alien to both ancient Jews and earliest Christians.

  197. on 23 Feb 2014 at 9:12 amAnthony Buzzard

    Thanks to all, for the comments on adoni, the second lord in Ps. 110:1. The discussion has become, I think, unnecessarily complex! The easy fact is that ADONI is the way the Hebrew Bible tells us that someone is NOT God. Not Deity. Adoni is “my lord,” and not my Lord. One can look up all 195 occurrences of adoni, and see that it never designates the LORD GOD.
    Dr. White’s attempt to derail this decisive argument failed. He tries to get you to doubt the correctness of the Hebrew text as we have it.
    But he has no evidence for any corruption here. He is driven only by his Trinitarianism. I pointed out that ADONI is translated (in BC times) into Greek (LXX) as kurios mou, “my lord,” in this case “to my lord.” That simply proves that ADONI was the way the second lord was read. But we know from the DSS and from Targums and Midrash in AD times that Jews never imagined a second Deity in Ps. 110:1. Dr. White forgets that these texts were read aloud, long before the official vowel points were added.
    You cannot read a word without vowels!
    There is not the slightest evidence from anywhere that ADONAI, rather than adoni, my lord, ever appeared in Ps., 110:1. Psalm 110:1 is an obvious proof that Jesus is the Messiah Lord, who was born (Luke 2:11) and not the LORD GOD, which would produce the horrifying idea of two who are GOD. Jesus is the Lord Christ not the Lord God over and over again in the NT.
    Dr. White found two examples of kurios mou as an address to GOD. But he did not tell you how and why these two exceptions arose. It is because of a double-address to a single Person, i.e. God (one Person) addressed as Lord and God. But in Ps. 110:1 we have GOD addressing someone else! So White’s two exceptions do not in anyway interfere with the obvious rule that ADONI, my lord, is never a reference to Deity. There is nil evidence for any mistake in the Hebrew or Greek of Ps. 110:1. Jesus used this verse to silence all objections, and so can we.

  198. on 23 Feb 2014 at 10:12 amMichael

    Anthony writes- He is driven only by his Trinitarianism.

    Responses…As you are driven by your Biblical Unitarianism.

    Anthony writes-in AD times that Jews never imagined a second Deity

    Response… And in ancient and modern times the Jews never imagined that God had a Son with a human female as you believe so why the endless nit picking on this matter. Why not embrace what you and every imaginable religion and denomination believe with complete unity.

    That God cannot and has not had a literal ontological Son. Why not focus on this universal belief to silence the objections.

  199. on 23 Feb 2014 at 11:23 amJas

    Mt 22:41-46
    41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
    42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
    43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
    44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
    45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
    46 And no man was able to answer him.

    It is very evident that Jesus is dealing with a very poor translation and understanding of Ps. 110:1 created by the fear of using God’s name.
    This verse is speaking of the Anointed King of Jerusalem , the Christ . This Psalm should be translated ” The Lord Yhwh said sit at my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool” .While this applies to Jesus as the last and final King of Salem it also applied to every Godly King from David onward which unfortunately were very few.
    There is not two lords in Ps. 110:1 ,only Yhwh and his Anointed

  200. on 23 Feb 2014 at 1:37 pmJas

    “One can look up all 195 occurrences of adoni, and see that it never designates the LORD GOD.”
    Anthony
    Yet in just very little research I found contrary evidence .This verse has adoni elohiym (Lord God)

    Dan 9:9
    Yet the Lord our God is compassionate and forgiving, 1 even though we have rebelled against him.

  201. on 23 Feb 2014 at 9:14 pmJas

    Would you say “Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool” would cover this statement
    “I will give your enemy into your hand, and you can do to him whatever seems appropriate to you.”

  202. on 24 Feb 2014 at 7:06 amJaco

    Michael attempts: “As you are driven by your Biblical Unitarianism.”

    No. Anthony approaches the issue from neutral premises. If any of his premises are slanted, point these out. Hit-and-run tactics hardly ever work.

    Another attempt by Michael: “And in ancient and modern times the Jews never imagined that God had a Son with a human female as you believe so why the endless nit picking on this matter. Why not embrace what you and every imaginable religion and denomination believe with complete unity.”

    Non-sequitur. It was not inconceivable for ancient Jews to believe in virginal begetting, precisely since (contra pagan deities) the biblical God did not engage in sexual intercourse.

    Another: “That God cannot and has not had a literal ontological Son. Why not focus on this universal belief to silence the objections.”

    Huh???

  203. on 24 Feb 2014 at 7:32 pmMichael

    Jaco writes- Anthony approaches the issue from neutral premises. If any of his premises are slanted, point these out.

    Response…The issue at hand is how Jesus is the Son of God but Anthony and all Biblical Unitarians do not enter this issue from neutral ground with Trinitarians. The debate is NEVER the Biblical Unitarians stating that God is the biological Father of Jesus as
    Anthony teaches and then the Trinitarians countering that Jesus was incarnated and was always God the Son.

    Instead they first stack the deck so only the Trinitarians have to make their argument and when the Unitarians prove the Trinitarian point false they claim proof and victory for their point of view which is never made and claim the Jews as their unwilling allies in the matter.

    Do the Jews believe that Jesus is God the Son, God in the flesh? No.

    Do the Jews believe as Anthony teaches that God is the biological Father of Jesus or as Kent Ross teaches that Jesus was conceived with sperm from God with the necessity of His chosen human female virgin? No, and you ask if any of Anthony’s premises are slanted?

    Jaco writes- Another: “That God cannot and has not had a literal ontological Son. Why not focus on this universal belief to silence the objections.”Huh???

    Response…Know this, that in the endless maze of religions and doctrines there exists a single thread of universal agreement that unites you all even with atheists, That the Lord God does not have an literal, ontological Son as any being does that has had offspring.

    You all universally agree that the Creator cannot and has not procreated, that the risen Jesus is not the literal ontological Son of God.

  204. on 24 Feb 2014 at 8:14 pmJas

    Michael
    Are you trying to say Jesus is just a Clone of God but yet you claim that this ontological generation was by receiving the seed during his life. I would say if the risen Jesus was not ontologically the physical Jesus then the risen Jesus is not the physical Jesus therefore another Jesus who was not the one who gave himself up as a sacrifice. If I was you I would not worry about what Anthony believes because atleast his has some historical basis within the pagan religions ,yours doesn’t even make sense or have an origin

  205. on 24 Feb 2014 at 8:44 pmMichael

    Jas writes- Are you trying to say Jesus is just a Clone of God

    Response…Quote…”that in the endless maze of religions and doctrines there exists a single thread of universal agreement that unites you all even with atheists, That the Lord God does not have an literal, ontological Son as any being does that has had offspring”.
    Where do derive the word “clone” from the words literal and ontological offspring?

    Jas writes- you claim that this ontological generation was by receiving the seed during his life.

    Response…It is by receiving from God that one becomes a son of God, not by human mothers receiving seed from God to create sons of God.

    Jas writes…I would say if the risen Jesus was not ontologically the physical Jesus then the risen Jesus is not the physical Jesus therefore another Jesus who was not the one who gave himself up as a sacrifice.

    Response…As I wrote, you agree with all athiests and religions that the risen Jesus is not the literal ontological Son of God but that is harder to write isin’t it?

    Jas writes- If I was you I would not worry about what Anthony believes because atleast his has some historical basis within the pagan religions

    Response…Which religions do you render as pagan, the ones that teach God is revealed in three persons or the ones that teach that God is the biological Father of Jesus and that Jesus was conceived with sperm from God with the necessity of His chosen human female virgin?

    Jas writes-yours doesn’t even make sense or have an origin

    Response…Sons of God are not begotten by seed?

    Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

    1John 3:9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.

    Where are the scriptures that teach God is revealed in three persons or the ones that teach that God is the biological Father of Jesus and that Jesus was conceived with sperm from God with the necessity of His chosen human female virgin?

  206. on 24 Feb 2014 at 8:52 pmJas

    “Where are the scriptures that teach God is revealed in three persons or the ones that teach that God is the biological Father of Jesus and that Jesus was conceived with sperm from God with the necessity of His chosen human female virgin?”

    Michael
    Your barking up the wrong tree, I do not find neither revealed in scripture not hold them as a belief.
    The Word of God is the seed spoken of metaphorically in these verses not some literal seed

  207. on 24 Feb 2014 at 11:27 pmJas

    “That the Lord God does not have an literal, ontological Son as any being does that has had offspring”.

    Michael
    Any being that has an offspring has 2 sources from which it draws its kind. In Horticulture they have managed to combine different species to form new different from their donors. In Genetics they have hybrid different species and have also created clones from a single donor which is what you are proposing with Jesus.

  208. on 25 Feb 2014 at 6:23 amMichael

    Jas writes- Your barking up the wrong tree, I do not find neither revealed in scripture not hold them as a belief. The Word of God is the seed spoken of metaphorically in these verses not some literal seed

    Response…So you find the Trinitarian and Biblical Unitarian doctrines on how Jesus is the Son of God are not found in in scripture and you have further determined that where scripture does reveal how man becomes a son of God to be symbolic, this is your second attempt to deny the Creator procreation without saying the words.

    1Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

    1John 3:9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.

    So now you are back to your first reason for God being unable to have a literal ontological offspring even though you will not write down the words, that if you take His word in Peter and John literally then you believe Jesus is a clone.

    So again, know this, that in the endless maze of religions and doctrines there exists a single thread of universal agreement that unites you all even with atheists, That the Lord God does not have an literal, ontological Son as any being does that has had offspring.

    You all universally agree that the Creator cannot and has not procreated, that the risen Jesus is not the literal ontological Son of God.

  209. on 25 Feb 2014 at 10:13 amJas

    Michael
    Your use of ontological literal son is not found or even expressed in the bible which is more than likely why almost nobody holds that belief. I am not sure by what source you have developed this belief. Did you just wake up one morning with it?

  210. on 25 Feb 2014 at 12:18 pmJas

    Going back to topic

    The fact is ”Adonai” is only a forced vocalization of the Hebrew word YHWH. Without explanations we could not even pronounce it as ”Adonai”. Anthony said “You cannot read a word without vowels!” which completely true so either the early hebrews were taught how to add vowel’s or God set apart priest who were taught from generation how to add vowels or were taught the scriptures orally then used the written word as a memory tool. I would never put my trust 100% in men because they are bias to many factors.
    But overall I think the MT is properly marked but is not without flaw.

  211. on 25 Feb 2014 at 2:41 pmMichael

    Jas writes- Your use of ontological literal son is not found or even expressed in the bible which is more than likely why almost nobody holds that belief. I am not sure by what source you have developed this belief.

    Response…Every father you know that has a son that has not been adopted has a literal and ontological son, do you need this expressed to you to believe or know it?

    God stated that Jesus was begotten of Him by the resurrection and that Jesus is his Son yet here you and every atheist and religious group conclude that when a man says he has a son then the son is his literal ontological son yet when God says He has a Son you all agree that the Creator could not possibly have a literal ontological Son, what is the source and purpose of this universally shared belief?

    How can the whole world be right?

  212. on 25 Feb 2014 at 2:51 pmJas

    “Every father you know that has a son that has not been adopted has a literal and ontological son”
    Michael
    And yet that son also has a mother who shares in the same nature. This gives the son individuality . One donor does not provide for individuality therefore what you are implying is nothing more than a clone.

  213. on 25 Feb 2014 at 3:12 pmMichael

    Jas writes- And yet that son also has a mother who shares in the same nature.

    Response…God is not a man and again you have found yet another way to proclaim for yourself and the world that agrees with you that God the Father cannot have a literal ontological Son as you can and your reason this time, because God does not have a woman, sorry God, tough break.

    Yet Biblical Unitarians believe that God has His Son Jesus precisely because of the contribution of a woman while every other man born of God is an event between God and the one being begotten by Him.

    Believe as you will.

  214. on 25 Feb 2014 at 3:38 pmJas

    Michael
    Again I am a strict unitarian who believes Jesus is the Son of God without believing that pagan lie. Ontological has nothing to do with literal sons ,it has to do with the nature of a species which Jesus was ontologically human which would make it impossible to become ontologically God because that would be another Jesus not the one who gave himself up as a sacrifice . I do believe God could change the physics of our body to where spirit is life not blood and believe Jesus was the first generation of humanity to receive spirit as life instead of blood making him the firstborn of God which is the literal sense of being called the Son of God before that there is the adoption which is how Jesus was called the Son of God before he was raised fron dead by the spirit

  215. on 26 Feb 2014 at 12:04 amMichael

    Jas writes-Again I am a strict Unitarian who believes Jesus is the Son of God without believing that pagan lie.

    Response…But not a Biblical Unitarian and the Unitarian belief on Jesus is “Unitarians maintain that Jesus is in some sense the “son” of God”

    Jas writes- Ontological has nothing to do with literal sons ,it has to do with the nature of a species which Jesus was ontologically human which would make it impossible to become ontologically God.

    Response…Now you are calling God a species, the word god is a title.
    John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

    So if God has a Son then the Son is not another god any more that a president having a child makes two presidents.

    Jas writes-I do believe God could change the physics of our body to where spirit is life not blood and believe Jesus was the first generation of humanity to receive spirit as life instead of blood making him the firstborn of God which is the literal sense of being called the Son of God.

    Response…Why do you find it impossible to say that God cannot have a literal ontological Son, God is not a human being and you claim His Son the risen Jesus is a human being and then try to justify it with the oxymoron “Literal sense” …“making him the firstborn of God which is the literal sense of being called the Son of God” You either share the same category of being or you don’t, you’re either a literal son or you are not.

    Jas writes-before that there is the adoption which is how Jesus was called the Son of God before he was raised from dead by the spirit

    Response…Now you have found yet another way to unite with the world and proclaim that God the Father cannot have a literal ontological Son in Jesus, adoption.

    Cloning, metaphors, no women and now adoption, is there no end to your reasons for joining the entire world by believing the risen Jesus is not the literal ontological Son of God?

  216. on 26 Feb 2014 at 5:51 amJaco

    Michael:

    The debate is NEVER the Biblical Unitarians stating that God is the biological Father of Jesus as
    Anthony teaches and then the Trinitarians countering that Jesus was incarnated and was always God the Son.

    You are generalising here. Firstly, regardless of where exactly we’re placing the beginning of Jesus’ existence, Anthony approaches the issue from neutral grounds and NOT from an assumption, unless you can point out where his approach above is biased. Secondly, many non-Trinitarians appreciate the fact that there is Conception Christology, Adoption Christology, Resurrection Christology and Ascension Christology. All of these have support in the Bible. That is not ever the case with Arian or Trinitarian Christology. So the beginning of Messiah’s existence is a non sequitur with the discussion at hand.

    No, and you ask if any of Anthony’s premises are slanted?

    And where is this part of Anthony’s argument above???

    You all universally agree that the Creator cannot and has not procreated, that the risen Jesus is not the literal ontological Son of God.

    I thought this was YOUR position??? That Jesus was not ontologically and biologically God’s son but in the Adoptionist sense?

  217. on 26 Feb 2014 at 7:21 amMichael

    Jaco writes- Firstly, regardless of where exactly we’re placing the beginning of Jesus’ existence,

    Response…Regardless? …You believe that God is the biological Father of Jesus with sperm from God with the necessity of His chosen betrothed human female virgin and that gets a “regardless” and the Trinity gets called a delusion?

    Jaco writes- Anthony approaches the issue from neutral grounds and NOT from an assumption,

    Response…Ask the Jews that he uses in his debates if the above statement is an assumption.

    Jaco writes-Secondly, many non-Trinitarians appreciate the fact that there is Conception Christology, Adoption Christology, Resurrection Christology and Ascension Christology.

    Response…I was on the COG blog and could not find one single person that would appreciate or sign up for the belief that “God is the biological Father of Jesus with sperm from God with the necessity of His chosen betrothed human female virgin”

    Jaco writes- the beginning of Messiah’s existence is a non sequitur with the discussion at hand.

    Response…How Jesus is the Son of God is the only reason for this and most debates, if Trinitarians believed that “God is the biological Father of Jesus with sperm from God with the necessity of His chosen betrothed human female virgin” then no one would be dissecting the word ”Adonai”

    Jaco writes- And where is this part (slanted) of Anthony’s argument above???

    Response…Because every time Anthony or any Biblical Unitarian debates a Trinitarian the Unitarian belief that that “God is the biological Father of Jesus with sperm from God with the necessity of His chosen betrothed human female virgin” is put forth to be examined by the Trinitarians.

    In Anthony’s court he is the prosecutor and the jury and never has to put up a defense and you don’t see that as slanted?

    Jaco writes- I thought this was YOUR position??? That Jesus was not ontologically and biologically God’s son but in the Adoptionist sense?

    Response…The risen Jesus is the literal ontological Son of God, this is his uniqueness. It is you and every atheist and religious group and the world that deny this. As Jas does, you all get to the belief that God the Father cannot have a literal ontological Son in many different ways but all your paths do in fact lead there.

    Can’t you see the irony of you and the whole world coming to the conclusion that two that called Father and Son are anything but that?

  218. on 26 Feb 2014 at 8:48 amJaco

    You’re missing the wood for the trees, Michael. You are still obsessed with the whole “God impregnated Mary” issue, and you can’t seem to look past this issue and approach the matter with less hysteria.

    The primary issue is NOT WHEN Messiah had his beginning, but WHETHER he had one. THAT is where the issue lies between Biblical Christology and Trinitarian fabrications. SECOND to this is WHEN Messiah had his beginning and HOW. You mis-represent Anthony as far as his arguments go HERE. His specific take on Jesus’ origin is a distinct issue, albeit related. This distinction you can’t seem to recognise.

    Because every time Anthony or any Biblical Unitarian debates a Trinitarian the Unitarian belief that that “God is the biological Father of Jesus with sperm from God with the necessity of His chosen betrothed human female virgin” is put forth to be examined by the Trinitarians.

    Nonsense. Leave a reference where Anthony or anyone else has ever stated this, with specific reference to the sperm part of your statement above.

    It is you and every atheist and religious group and the world that deny this. As Jas does, you all get to the belief that God the Father cannot have a literal ontological Son in many different ways but all your paths do in fact lead there.

    You’re a lose cannon, Michael. We do not deny the resurrection of Jesus. If you locate Jesus’ sonship at his resurrection, then you subscribe to a Resurrection Christology, which is interesting, and has support in Scripture. How you draw the link between atheists’ denying Jesus’ resurrection and BUs at large highlighting Luke’s conception Christology is an entertaining overstatement.

    Hopefully you can engage in less fearful conversation. If you can, then maybe you can explain what your understanding is of the Birth Narratives in Luke and Matthew.

    Thanks,

  219. on 26 Feb 2014 at 11:02 amJas

    Michael
    Yes I am a Biblical unitarian who also draws from historical and cultural context which has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus .It solely is about the nature of the Most High as ONE being.
    Jesus was not the first to called God’s son or call God Father. Solomen received this honor in a very descriptive declaration from God to David. As far as virgin birth I have satisfactory historical evidence that it was added a century later to Matthew and Luke. I also have satisfactory historical evidence that “today i have fathered you” was spoken to Jesus at his baptism which is the reason for my adoptionist belief. I also belief it was spoken to him again when he rosed from the dead as the firstborn of the dead by which because this was a new type of human which God was the source of this change from blood to spirit which makes him the literal firstborn of a new creation. While I respect your right to hold that belief I am curious what is your source of it because I dont see it in the bible or in any historical or cultural sources. I have no other choice then to deny your belief because it makes absolutely no sense to me.
    I was wondering whether you can discuss topic at hand ,I would certainly love to.

  220. on 27 Feb 2014 at 12:01 pmJas

    There is a few factors in understanding this verse.
    1. The word Adonai does not exist in the verse but is a forced vocalization that isn’t the only vocalization . The others used are Hashem( the name) and Elohim(God).
    2. This is a psalm sang outloud about David not by David
    3. The grammer of the hebrew text could easily be read YHWH our Lord.
    4.The LXX use of 2 Lords in no way compromises the reading YHWH our Lord because this Psalm was sung about David originally which the translators of LXX understood,
    5. Jesus’ use and questioning was to show the Pharisees’ understanding of it confirmed Jesus as the Christ because his lineage made him the Son of David to which the promises were made which totally shut their mouths.

  221. on 27 Feb 2014 at 3:30 pmTimoteo

    Jas,

    Perhaps, you might still have the DNA thesis we read about men and womens chromosomes. This genetic code came froms GODs design in his scratch built/created son Adam. Michael should benefit by reading the article?

    Luke 3: (KJV)
    38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

    1 Timothy 2: (kjv)
    13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

    GOD, being the designer/creator of humankind, used his already designed human female to her supernaturally conceive within/by herself.

    Genesis 3: (KJV)
    15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

    What? A woman has eggs, not seeds. All women must have the same apparatus as Mary, but Mary had the right love of GOD in her heart and was chosen by GOD to give birth of mankind’s savoir.

    Luke 1: (kjv)
    35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow[Episkiazo] thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

    Episkiazo=
    to throw a shadow upon, to envelop in a shadow, to overshadow
    Hebraism=overshadowed by the grandeur of the recognized presence of God

    There is nothing implying that GOD impregnated Mary with his sperm.

    The Hebraism, “to know”, means to have sex with, and with a result of conception and childbirth.

    1 Corinthians 15: (kjv)
    45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

    The resurrected, first fruits of the dead, Jesus Christ, is the last Adam.

    Revelation 1: (kjv)
    5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

    Acts 13: (kjv)
    33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

  222. on 27 Feb 2014 at 4:10 pmJas

    Timoteo
    You are correct the birth narratives mentions nothing of the use of sperm but neither did the Pagan legends.
    Actually Genesis 3:15 does not even mention seed it mentions Offspring cause a seed has no physical abilities so it is not related to Michael’s use of seed which is only metaphoric as is the term firstfruit as applied to Jesus as the firstborn and the term firstfruits that is applied to the Saints.

  223. on 27 Feb 2014 at 9:53 pmTimoteo

    Thanks James,

    [Zera] is the word translated seed in Genesis 3:15 and is a “masculine noun” used some 229 times in the OT.

    Zera=
    seed, sowing, offspring
    a sowing
    seed
    semen virile
    offspring, descendants, posterity, children
    of moral quality
    a practitioner of righteousness (fig.)
    sowing time

    also translated: seed, child, carnally, fruitful, seedtime, sowing time

    When the serpent, AKA the devil, a fallen Angel is a spiritual being….then how does this spiritual entity have decedents?

    There are still those causing the Christians to question, doubt, change, add to and finally contradict GODs word.

    Genesis 3: (KJV)
    3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, {Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden}?

    {GOD did not say this}

    2 {And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden}:

    {GOD said freely eat=left out the word freely}

    3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, {neither shall ye touch it}, lest ye die.

    {GOD did not say anything about a tree in the midst or touching this tree}

    4 And the serpent said unto the woman, {Ye shall not surely die}:

    {devil contradicted GOD}

    5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

    6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

    GOD said: Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

    There was a tread here on Kingdom Ready about the Nephilim as described in the uncanonized Book of Enoch. Have you ever read the Book of Enoch?

    Jude 1: (NASB)
    14 It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,

    Genesis 6: n (NASB)
    4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

    The delivered Children of Israel saw these giants when they scouted the Promise Land.

    Numbers 13: (NASB)
    33 There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

    Believing about these half-bread humans existence and GODs Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary to bring the conception of Jesus in a virgins womb. These concepts are written about in GODs word, and I am sure that Jesus did not question the scriptures integrity. He also believed GOD would raise him from the dead and that after being resurrected and ascending to GOD, that he would come and indwel his chosen by GOD bretheren as their parakletos. This whole pneumatikos=spiritual matters affair is laid only for the potential christian to begin by believing that GOD did indead raise Jesus from the dead as testified by witnesses.

    And furthermore, Jesus encountered extreme prejudice from the religious leaders. Much like we do today, but never did he have to deal with …..about his living a pre existance life, being GOD or about a triune god usurping his love for our one GOD and father.

    Sometimes

  224. on 27 Feb 2014 at 10:17 pmJas

    “When the serpent, AKA the devil, a fallen Angel is a spiritual being….then how does this spiritual entity have decedents?”

    Timoteo
    That depends upon your understanding of what was the fruit of that tree. It was Satan himself enticing Eve into the act of sex causing the conception of Cain which she then enticed Adam causing another egg to fertilize. As far as the Nephilim maybe it was fallen angels but my understanding is it was men of Seth’s bloodline having sex with 6th day creation daughters that might have been mixed with Cain’s bloodline. Funny that you can believe fallen angels could have offsprings but not THE FALLEN ANGEL satan.
    Should we lump God into the same being as fallen angels or satan

  225. on 27 Feb 2014 at 11:18 pmTimoteo

    Jas,

    You seem to be quoting the Quranic version of the biblical story which is totally at variance with the original Torah revelation given to Moses.

    The Quran’s version is diametrically opposite and incredibly different.

    Genesi 4: (kjv))
    4 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain[Qayin], and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

    Qayin=
    “possession”
    eldest son of Adam and Eve and the first murderer having murdered his brother Abel
    the tribe from which the father-in-law of Moses was a member and which lived in the area between southern Palestine and the mountains of Sinai

    2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

    “Should we lump God into the same being as fallen angels or satan”….ahhhhhh, get out of here.

    Here:

    http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Abook%20of%20enoch

  226. on 27 Feb 2014 at 11:23 pmJas

    “You seem to be quoting the Quranic version of the biblical story which is totally at variance with the original Torah revelation given to Moses.”

    Actually it comes from properly translating the passages.
    Seems that this is even a jewish understanding

    Yebamoth 103b–Rabbi Johanan stated: “When the serpent copulated with Eve, he infused her with lust.”

    Haye Sarah 126a –Another Rabbi states: “Thus I have learnt, that when the serpent had intercourse with Eve he injected defilement into her.”

    Haye Sarah 126b–Another stated: “You rightly said that when the serpent had carnal intercourse with Eve he injected into her defilement.”

    Yevamot 103b–”According to the midrash, the snake seduced her to commit adultery with him. Thus a thrice repeated saying of Rabbi Yohanan has it that ‘at the time that the snake had intercourse with Eve, he introduced filth into her…”

    Ahare Moth 76b–One Rabbinic source stated: “Eve bore Cain from the filth of the serpent, and therefore from him were descended all the wicked generations, and from his side is the abode of spirits and demons.”

    Bereshith 36b–”For two beings had intercourse with Eve, and she conceived both and bore two children. Each followed one of the male parents, to this side and one to the other, and similarly their characters.”

    Shabbath 146a–”For when the serpent came upon Eve he injected lust into her.”

    Yevamot 103b–”…at the time that the snake had intercourse with Eve, he introduced filth into her.

    Zohar I, 28b–”For they are the children of the ancient serpent which seduced Eve…”

    Targum Pseudo-Jonathan–”Adam knew about his wife Eve that she had conceived by Sammael the angel of the Lord, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.”

    Jewish Encyc.1904-Vol.9.p.70–”The chief functions fo Satan are, as already noted, those of temptation, accusation, and punishment. He was an active agent in the fall of man(Pirke R.El.Xii.) and was the father of Cain.”

    Jewish Encyc.1904-Vol.5,p.275-”Eve became pregnant, and bore Cain and Abel on the very day of (her creation and) expulsion from Eden (Gen.R.xii) Cain’s real father was not Adam, but one of the demons…”

    Pirqei de Rabbi Eliezer: “The serpent came into her and she became pregnant with Cain, as it says, “And the man knew his wife Eve.”What did he know” That she was already pregnant.(by Satan.)

    Targum of Jonathan–”And Adam was aware that Eve his wife had conceived from Sammael the angel, and she became pregnant and bare Cain, and he was like those on high, not like those below; and she said, ‘I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord.”

    Jerusalem Targum–”And Adam knew his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Cain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord. And she added to bear from her husband Adamhis twin, even Abel.”

    The Encycl.Britannica Vol.VIII-1910.p.122 (Jewish Interpretations of Scripture) “The birth of Cain is ascribed to a union of Satan with Eve.”

    Jewish Encycl.1905.Vol.XI p.69–”Satan was the seducer and paramour of Eve.”

  227. on 27 Feb 2014 at 11:29 pmMichael

    Jaco writes- You are still obsessed with the whole “God impregnated Mary”

    Response…Anyone begotten by God has no involvement from a human woman; it is Biblical Unitarians that insist that a human woman was necessary for Jesus to become the Son of God.

    Jaco writes-The primary issue is NOT WHEN Messiah had his beginning, but WHETHER he had one. THAT is where the issue lies between Biblical Christology and Trinitarian fabrications.

    Response…That’s the way you phrase the question on how Jesus is the Son of God so that you don’t have to explain the Biblical Unitarian fabrication on how “God is the biological Father of Jesus with sperm from God with the necessity of His chosen betrothed human female virgin”

    Quote- “God is the biological Father of Jesus with sperm from God with the necessity of His chosen betrothed human female virgin”

    Jaco writes-Nonsense. Leave a reference where Anthony or anyone else has ever stated this, with specific reference to the sperm part of your statement above.

    Response…You don’t believe that Anthony teaches that God is the biological Father of Jesus?

    You don’t believe that Kent Ross teaches that sperm from God was used with the necessity of a human female virgin to conceive Jesus?

    On Jan 29 2013 COG blog, I quoted Anthony from the byte show ,a four part series on the biblical understanding of Jesus
    Quote by Anthony Buzzard-”If you were sitting around the table with Jesus back then and asked him who his father was then he would answer that his father was God. In a secondary sense we can call God our Father but Jesus can call him in the literal sense his biological father”.

    Quote by Sean Finnegan-”God himself is going to father the child through the Holy Spirit miraculously, so the child is biologically, if we can use that word, the son of God. If you drew a family tree of Jesus on the mother’s side it would go back and back, on his dad’s side there would just be one, God.”

    Here is Kent Ross defending his sperm from God on the COG blog in February 2013
    Why the deep discomfort with the term “sperm” from God?
    From what I’ve seen here, you have virtually no Scriptural evidence to decry this.

    Jaco writes- If you locate Jesus’ sonship at his resurrection, then you subscribe to a Resurrection Christology, which is interesting, and has support in Scripture

    Response…Jesus was the Son of God from the moment he received his seed from God as any one born of God, Jesus became God’s only begotten Son by the resurrection.

    Jaco writes- How you draw the link between atheists’ denying Jesus’ resurrection and BUs at large highlighting Luke’s conception Christology is an entertaining overstatement.

    Response…I don’t draw a link with these two topics, I am simply pointing out to you that you have complete unity with every atheists, religious group and the world that the risen Jesus is not the literal ontological Son of God.

    Again, how can the whole world be right?

  228. on 27 Feb 2014 at 11:46 pmMichael

    Jas writes- Yes I am a Biblical Unitarian who also draws from historical and cultural context which has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus

    Response…AKA The stone of stumbling.

    Jas writes- I also have satisfactory historical evidence that “today i have fathered you” was spoken to Jesus at his baptism which is the reason for my adoptionist belief.

    Response…Where is “Today I have begotten you” spoken at the baptism of Jesus? Jesus was not adopted.

    Jas writes- because this was a new type of human
    Response…Just like the word “Trinity”, a “new type of human” is not found in scripture

    Jas writes- While I respect your right to hold that belief I am curious what is your source of it because I dont see it in the bible

    Response…What belief do I hold and what part can’t you find in scripture?

  229. on 27 Feb 2014 at 11:52 pmJas

    “Where is “Today I have begotten you” spoken at the baptism of Jesus? Jesus was not adopted.”

    Michael
    In the oldest fragments of Luke and in many pre-nicene commentaries of Jesus’ baptism.
    Dont blame me because I have done my homework myself instead of trusting bad translations and men

  230. on 28 Feb 2014 at 1:09 amJaco

    Michael, you again go off on your hystrionic hissing trip, which just confirms why there’s no point in trying to engage you. If God is the literal Origin of anybody, the relationship is a biological one. Not necessarily a SEXUAL one ( hence my objection to the “sperm” part of the comparison, whoever made it). Adam was, for instance, NOT God’s son in the sexual sense, but could be understood as his son in a biological and literal sense.

    You also come across as a troll whose only interest is to attack, and not to discuss. If you were interested in discussing why didn’t you give an answer to my question on how you understand the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke?

    And if you’re going to get yet another hissing fit, I’m not going to respond, since you’ll be a waste of time. Continued, civil discussion will depend on the maturity of your response.

  231. on 28 Feb 2014 at 6:12 amMichael

    Jas writes-While I respect your right to hold that belief I am curious what is your source of it because I don’t see it in the bible

    Jas writes-In the oldest fragments of Luke and in many pre-nicene commentaries of Jesus’ baptism.
    Dont blame me because I have done my homework myself instead of trusting bad translations and men

    Response…Don’t trust in men trust in Jas? Don’t believe what’s not written in the Bible only believe what Jas says even though it’s not written in the Bible?

    Heads you win, tails I lose. You are a Biblical Unitarian, always operating with a stacked deck.

  232. on 28 Feb 2014 at 6:16 amMichael

    Jaco writes- If God is the literal Origin of anybody, the relationship is a biological one.

    Response…Is God biological?

    Jaco writes- Adam was, for instance, NOT God’s son in the sexual sense, but could be understood as his son in a biological and literal sense.

    Response…Again and I quote from post 227, “Anyone begotten by God has no involvement from a human woman; it is Biblical Unitarians that insist that a human woman was necessary for Jesus to become the Son of God”

    This includes Adam, Adam became a son of God the moment he received a se3ed from Him and was rendered dead the moment he sinned because his seed could no longer remain rendering him dead with no seed to be quickened by the resurrection.

    Jaco writes-If you were interested in discussing why you didn’t give an answer to my question on how you understand the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke.

    Response…You didn’t ask me how I understand the birth narratives, you asked you “How you draw the link between atheists’ denying Jesus’ resurrection and BUs at large highlighting Luke’s conception Christology is an entertaining overstatement” and I answered your question.

    Jaco writes- And if you’re going to get yet another hissing fit, I’m not going to respond, since you’ll be a waste of time. Continued, civil discussion will depend on the maturity of your response.

    Response…You seem to be the only one posting whose maturity seems to be in question because it is your doctrine that’s being questioned and Biblical Unitarian writings are being examined.

    Trinitarians are clearly better at having their doctrine examined than Biblical Unitarians are.

  233. on 28 Feb 2014 at 8:36 amJaco

    “This includes Adam, Adam became a son of God the moment he received a se3ed from Him and was rendered dead the moment he sinned because his seed could no longer remain rendering him dead with no seed to be quickened by the resurrection.”

    Nonsense. Adam became God’s son the moment he was created by God. This seed business has no basis in the Bible.

    “You didn’t ask me how I understand the birth narratives, you asked”

    Err…comment no. 218? Where I said: “Hopefully you can engage in less fearful conversation. If you can, then maybe you can explain what your understanding is of the Birth Narratives in Luke and Matthew.” ???

    Michael, you deserve to be ignored. Who have you convinced since your fits here? Your position is as sterile as the “seedless” Adam. Good luck, pal.

  234. on 28 Feb 2014 at 8:43 amTimoteo

    Jaco,

    One needs to take the time to continue their education…..I use Google and thought I would share a link about “histrionic”.

    HYSTRIONIC:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder

    I think this is an “X ring” bulls-eye for all to examine themselves.

    And…since GOD created the first/biological man, Adam, and our Earth with all its science/physics, elements, geology, and biology…he can and did make a new creation when he resurrected Jesus into Jesus Christ.

    1 Corinthians 15: (kjv)
    45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

    GOD did the making/creating and
    “Father Along”
    we will know all about it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IctD9l4F-ag

  235. on 28 Feb 2014 at 10:17 amJas

    Timothy
    I would be very careful in labeling Michael with a disorder. He just believes his understanding of seed is literal and wants to share but he has no proof so its hard for him to explain without attacking evidence against it.
    His belief about the seed exist by the same method your belief on baptism exist.
    I agree with Jaco that it is an unproductive conversation with Micheal but my reason is Michael does not present any real source for his belief which makes it very hard to research and draw a conclusion.

  236. on 28 Feb 2014 at 10:38 amTimoteo

    Jas,

    “I would be very careful in labeling Michael with a disorder.”

    Well then continue being careful.

    Reading Googled information is for everyone, all without exception.

  237. on 28 Feb 2014 at 11:50 amJas

    “Don’t trust in men trust in Jas? Don’t believe what’s not written in the Bible only believe what Jas says even though it’s not written in the Bible?”

    Michael
    I have never asked anyone to just trust me, matter is I have asked them not to and research for themselves proving and reproving what they believe and disproving what I present if Possible . I am not flawless and am subject to better understandings if they can be proved sufficiently .

  238. on 01 Mar 2014 at 3:59 pmMichael

    Jaco writes-Nonsense Adam became God’s son the moment he was created by God. This seed business has no basis in the Bible.

    Response…One is born of the Spirit by seed according to what is written in the Bible.

    1Peter1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
    Unlike Adam, now one born of the Spirit does not lose their seed by committing a sin.

    1John 3:9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because

    God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.

    Where is the word Trinity in the Bible or the word agent or new humanity? Where is God declaring “thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee” at the baptism of Jesus?

    It is this business of the Trinity, agent, new humanity God declarations at a baptism that have no basis in the Bible.

    Jaco writes- If you can, then maybe you can explain what your understanding is of the Birth Narratives in Luke and Matthew

    Response… The first time you used the word “nonsense “when you claimed that something was not said or written was your attempt at denying that Anthony had said”If you were sitting around the table with Jesus back then and asked him who his father was then he would answer that his father was God. In a secondary sense we can call God our Father but Jesus can call him in the literal sense his biological father”.

    When asked to explain this statement Anthony said “God is his Father by working a biological miracle in Mary. Is that OK?”

    So the Biblical Unitarian position on how Jesus is the Son of God is very simple and straightforward, it was a biological miracle. So the BU explanations of the birth narratives must also be simple and straightforward, the angel came to Mary and said God is going to cause you to become pregnant with the Son of God and really, who can’t understand that definition?… apparently Mary and her family.

    Luke 2:48-51 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

    God’s business was obviously temple business; could that have not been understood by Mary?

    Jesus called God his Father and if Mary understood as you do that Jesus was the Son of God according to the flesh then how does she look at these two simple and straightforward statements by Jesus and not understand what he is talking about?

    The angel told two things to Mary and an angel told Joseph one thing.
    Joseph was told that the child to be born was of the Holy Ghost and he was to name the child Jesus.

    Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

    Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

    Mary was told that she would conceive a child and like Joseph was told to call him Jesus. Unlike Joseph she was additionally told that her son would be called the Son of the Highest. Mary did not know how she could have a child with no male involvement and certainly did not know how the child could be the Son of God.

    Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

    Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

    Luke1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man

    So the angel told her how she would conceive and how the child would be the Son of God.

    Luke 1:35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

    Two actions of the Spirit were told to Mary and one action was told to Joseph but she did not understand how Jesus was the Son of God but she knew it wasn’t because of the biological conception in her.

    Jaco writes- you deserve to be ignored

    Response…Who has urged you to participate?

    Jaco writes- Who have you convinced since your fits here?

    Response…No one that I know of has been convinced but as for the “fits” you are the man.

    Jaco writes- Your position is as sterile as the “seedless” Adam. Good luck, pal.

    Response…Believe as you will.

  239. on 01 Mar 2014 at 4:31 pmJas

    “Where is God declaring “thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee” at the baptism of Jesus?”

    NET © and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. 1 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my one dear Son; 2 in you I take great delight.” 3

    3 Instead of “You are my one dear Son; in you I take great delight,” one Greek ms and several Latin mss and church fathers (D it Ju [Cl] Meth Hil Aug) quote Ps 2:7 outright with “You are my Son; today I have fathered you.”

    Michael
    The fact most of the pre-nicene fathers quote this version is a very powerful witness.
    Why dont you do just a little research instead of building a doctrine around a few verses which you think are literal but are just METAPHORIC

  240. on 01 Mar 2014 at 8:25 pmMichael

    Jas writes- The fact most of the pre-nicene fathers quote this version is a very powerful witness.
    Why don’t you do just a little research instead of building a doctrine around a few verses which you think are literal but are just METAPHORIC

    Response…The KJV,NKJV,NLT,NIV,ESV,NASB,RSV,ASV,YLT,DBY,WEB and the HNV do not list the second Psalm at the baptism of Jesus and if you understood why God said these words you would know why it wasn’t quoted there.

    But then again you said that you were a “Biblical Unitarian who also draws from historical and cultural context” meaning that you draw conclusions from sources other than the Bible which gives, at least to you, more accuracy then those lazy men that have translated the Bible.

    So you were right when you said “Don’t blame me because I have done my homework myself instead of trusting bad translations and men”

    Seriously, don’t you believe you owe it to mankind and God to expose all the errors of the lazy men that translated the word of God so God’s people can discern the truth with the JAS translation?

    You could add the words agent, new humanity and psalm 2 into Matthew 3:17 and who knows what else you have researched and then everyone could actually find Biblical Unitarian doctrine in scripture.

    I’ll stick with the versions that we already have.

  241. on 01 Mar 2014 at 8:56 pmJas

    “The KJV,NKJV,NLT,NIV,ESV,NASB,RSV,ASV,YLT,DBY,WEB and the HNV do not list the second Psalm at the baptism of Jesus and if you understood why God said these words you would know why it wasn’t quoted there.”

    Michael
    Why would they since they believe Jesus was eternally begotten but this statement shows your lack of knowledge on where all these translations get their source. There are literally several 1000′s of ancient NT Manuscripts . Greek,Old Latin, Latin Vulgate , old Aramaic and Peshita but none are the autographs and no whole collection that dates before 340 AD. But the Pre-nicene writers give us clues to the readings in the books they had access to and if they Quoted or spoke of Jesus’ baptism they always quoted it as the same as Psalm.

    “Seriously, don’t you believe you owe it to mankind and God to expose all the errors of the lazy men that translated the word of God so God’s people can discern the truth with the JAS translation?”

    Dont you want to follow the best and oldest readings or should you follow a lie. Do you know how many variants exist amongst the english translation you named above, they are enormous because every translator will not translate against their doctrine completely.
    So stick to them if you want to follow their lies or do some research to uncover their lies

  242. on 01 Mar 2014 at 9:13 pmMichael

    Of the “The KJV,NKJV,NLT,NIV,ESV,NASB,RSV,ASV,YLT,DBY,WEB and the HNV Jas writes- So stick to them if you want to follow their lies or do some research to uncover their lies

    Response…Yet with all their lies you still find complete unity with them and the world that risen Jesus is not the literal ontological Son of God, at least they got one something right in your mind.

  243. on 01 Mar 2014 at 9:20 pmJas

    Micheal
    I am also in unity with them that dark is night and light is day. There is a very good reason why we agree, there is absolutely nothing in the bible or anywhere that Jesus is the literal ontological Son of God which would be like calling the light night.

  244. on 02 Mar 2014 at 12:23 amTimoteo

    Michael,

    ref # 238

    “Response…One is born of the Spirit by seed according to what is written in the Bible.

    1Peter1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.”

    FYI

    Jesus taught that the word of GOD is seed.

    Luke 8: (kjv)
    11) Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

    The parable of the sower is one to study and heed.

    Actually, being Kingdom ready, rerquires producing fruit to your maximum abilities.

    15) But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

    And being kingdom ready.

  245. on 02 Mar 2014 at 5:12 pmMichael

    Timoteo writes- ref # 238 “Response…One is born of the Spirit by seed according to what is written in the Bible. 1Peter1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.”

    FYI

    Jesus taught that the word of GOD is seed.
    Luke 8: (kjv)

    11) Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
    The parable of the sower is one to study and heed.

    Response…

    John 3:1-8There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

    The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

    Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

    Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

    Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

    That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

    Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

    The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

    …Nicodemus knew Jesus was a teacher come from God and that no man could do these miracles except God be with him. So Jesus tells him how someone has God with them, by being born of God. Nicodemus thinks being born of God has something to do with his birth mother and Jesus tells him “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” and that “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit”

    And so this is with everyone born of the Spirit including the man Jesus.

  246. on 02 Mar 2014 at 5:42 pmJas

    “And so this is with everyone born of the Spirit including the man Jesus.”

    Michael
    And how does this make Jesus the literal ontological Son of God. Where is this seed spoken of to Nicodemus ?
    Man is formed from the dust and to dust he will return. In the resurrection which God spoke of through Ezekiel about the bones that are Israel it requires water to reform flesh upon them bones and also requires something to carry life to all the parts. We know that this was the function of blood but in the resurrection life will be carried by spirit. Being born again is metaphoric for the resurrection . I find this passage very clear and not at odds with hebrew scriptures.

  247. on 02 Mar 2014 at 6:20 pmMichael

    Jas writes- And how does this make Jesus the literal ontological Son of God.

    Response…Receiving a seed from God made Jesus the Son of God as it is with any one born of the Spirit, it was the sowing and quickening of the seed that by death and the resurrection that Jesus became God’s only begotten Son, the literal ontological Son of God.

    Jas writes- Where is this seed spoken of to Nicodemus?
    Response…He did not tell Nicodemus how God begat his children, He told Nicodemus how one could become born of God which still was a future event because Jesus had to die and be and become God’s only begotten Son by the resurrection, this is the only Son God could give for eternal life, the risen and only begotten.

    John 3:14-16 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

  248. on 02 Mar 2014 at 6:35 pmJas

    37:1 The hand 1 of the Lord was on me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the Lord and placed 2 me in the midst of the valley, and it was full of bones. 37:2 He made me walk all around among them. 3 I realized 4 there were a great many bones in the valley and they were very dry. 37:3 He said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?” I said to him, “Sovereign Lord, you know.” 37:4 Then he said to me, “Prophesy over these bones, and tell them: ‘Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. 37:5 This is what the sovereign Lord says to these bones: Look, I am about to infuse breath 5 into you and you will live. 37:6 I will put tendons 6 on you and muscles over you and will cover you with skin; I will put breath(spirit), 7 in you and you will live. Then you will know that I am the Lord.’”

    37:7 So I prophesied as I was commanded. There was a sound when I prophesied – I heard 8 a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to bone. 37:8 As I watched, I saw 9 tendons on them, then muscles appeared, 10 and skin covered over them from above, but there was no breath(spirit), 11 in them.

    37:9 He said to me, “Prophesy to the breath(spirit), 12 – prophesy, son of man – and say to the breath(spirit), : ‘This is what the sovereign Lord says: Come from the four winds, O breath(spirit), , and breathe on these corpses so that they may live.’” 37:10 So I prophesied as I was commanded, and the breath(spirit), came into them; they lived and stood on their feet, an extremely great army.

    Michael
    Can tendons,muscle and skin exist without water . This verse is just confirming the resurrection which is the regeneration aka reborn, born again. Absolutely no one not even Jesus could enter without water for the regeneration and spirit for life instead of blood. Blood is the only thing missing from Jesus’ resurrected body.
    Again you use literal ontological son without any basis for it.

  249. on 02 Mar 2014 at 6:37 pmTimoteo

    Michael,

    There is no “seed” involved other than the metaphors in 1 Corinthians 15 describing the death and resurrection of Jesus.

    He died as Jesus and became the first fruits from the dead, the then bornagain man Jesus Christ.

    No one else has been or will be bornagain until Jesus Christ returns and “his” will be resurrected, as the next fruits and changed as they enter the Kingdom of GOD.

    Many are Christians in the process of being born again as they stay in the race, the prize, being to be born again.

  250. on 02 Mar 2014 at 7:09 pmJas

    14:4 These are the ones who have not defiled themselves 6 with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These were redeemed from humanity as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb

    Timothy
    Jesus was the firstFRUIT of the firstfruits. Each in their own order
    1. Jesus as the firstfruit of many fruits.
    2. The firstfruits who are those who were not defiled by the whore aka covenant Israelites which includes many gentiles in NT times who obeyed the commandments of God
    3. Those who are Jesus’ because He purchased them with the price of his blood. The theif on the cross as example who definitely was not in covenant with God

    Micheal
    Your belief makes God a liar to Ezekiel

  251. on 04 Mar 2014 at 8:06 amTimoteo

    Jas, buenos dias

    Our adversary, has a lot of cards on the table with the ongoing, near crisis at hand in the Ukraine. Still, the purpose of this LHIM blog is to educate{doctrine}, test{reproof} and re-mediate{correction}, bringing the few to a Kingdom Ready, on alert, status.

    2 Timothy 3: (kjv)
    16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    17 That the man of God may be perfect[artios], thoroughly furnished[exartizo] unto all good works.

    artios=
    complete
    perfect

    exartizo=
    to complete, finish
    to furnish perfectly
    to finish, accomplish
    to be completely, completely, completely, complete

    2 Timothy 4:
    4 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

    2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

    Every human being will be resurrected in their own order, the just, to eternal life and then, the unjust to judgement and elimination.

    To judge or be judged?

    1 Corinthians 6: (kjv)
    6 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

    2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

    3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

    2 Timothy 2: (kjv)
    14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

    15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

    16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

    American Urban Music:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA

  252. on 04 Mar 2014 at 11:28 amJas

    Timothy
    I agree the beast has lots of cards, it always did even from the time of Noah through the time of Israel where it drew multitudes away from their God but never more then since its come back after Jesus mortally wounded it by bringing back many of his people back to God. Slowly it came back to power till it merged with a very powerful empire in the 4th century more powerful then the empires of its past.
    For 1260 years the set apart flourished in the wilderness although constantly being sought out by the beast till the rise of the false prophet who retain at least one lie of the beast wrapped by at least one truth but still employed persecution as a tool in the beginning.
    I agree that there will be 2 resurrections with the righteous being fewer in comparison and these righteous judging the nations during the millennium but no where is it stated these Saints have been given eternal life ,matter is it is stated they still can die . The 2nd will be of the Great and Small who are everyone who ever lived who Jesus purchased back for God by his blood. These will be judged out of the book of Life and book of the dead by their own actions. This is the resurrection and Judgement we will receive which yes being a follower of Jesus will insure a favorable judgement unless we deny this grace or have taught Israel to forsake the words of the Covenants .
    I realize this will not be favorable to you because you believe you are one of the few so much so you have stated you were one of two at this site that are true christians condemning all the rest to judgement and elimination.

  253. on 30 May 2014 at 12:33 amROTB

    PSALMS 80:17
    17 Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man [whom] thou madest strong for thyself.

    It seems to me that since the “man of thy right hand” is the same designation used for the unknown “YHWH/Adoni/Adonai” of Psalm 110, that Psalms 80:17 is a terribly important clue that at the least, Psalms 110 was not written by some servant of King David.

  254. on 30 May 2014 at 7:58 pmJas

    ROTB
    Nobody knows who wrote Psalms 110 but it was definitely wrote about David’s Messianic kingly line of the United Kingdom of Israel of which Jesus was anointed. Jesus when asking the Jews their understanding of it never explains his understanding of it. Neither Psalm is refering to a unknown “YHWH/Adoni/Adonai” .

  255. on 20 Jun 2014 at 8:49 amAnthony Buzzard

    It is astonishing that the creed of Jesus and Israel in Mk 12:29 cannot be accepted as proof that only the Father is God. Jesus said exactly that in Jn 17:3 “You Father are the only one who is true God.” If that is not clear, language has ceased to have meaning. Then this (Mk 12:29): “The Lord our God is one person.” Eis in Greek means one Person. There are singular personal pronouns for the One God, thousands and thousands of times!
    All this is not complex. But as Millard Erickson says in his book on the Trinity (pro-Trinity), a schooled Trinitarian must be willing to say “He are three and They is one.”
    Now that is complicated!

  256. on 20 Jun 2014 at 11:23 amSarah

    Amen, Anthony! The degree to which Greek philosophy has infected Christian doctrine is astounding. When the platonic filter is removed, one suddenly realizes how crystal clear scripture is about our One God, the Father.

  257. on 21 Jun 2014 at 1:45 amRay

    Jesus never intended for men to do what they sometimes do with Mk 12:29, and one day they will have to answer to him for all the harm they have done to others by those things.

    Jesus walked in a lot of liberty and he intends that we will also. There is a perfect liberty that is by the Spirit of God, and that Spirit will not be hindered by the dictates of carnal men. The Spirit of God will not be bound by men. He doesn’t bow to the will of man. The Spirit of God is obedient to God.

  

Leave a Reply