Trinity Debate – Hebrews 1:10

Subject:  Hebrews 1:10 proves the Trinity Doctrine
Date: Mar. 24 2007
Debaters:  Is 1: 18 & t8


Is 1:18

Hi t8, 

Here is my first proof text. I selected Hebrews 1:10 as I think it establishes Yeshua as THE Creator, as well as this it’s also got a fishhook in it for those of a henotheistic persuasion (more on that later). Here is the verse in the context of the entire Chapter:

Hebrews 1
1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. 5For to which of the angels did He ever say, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? And again, ” I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”? 6And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.” 7And of the angels He says,” WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE.” 8But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. 9″ YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HASANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.” 10And, “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; 11THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN;AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT, 12AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP;LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED BUT YOU ARE THE SAME,AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.” 13But to which of the angels has He ever said, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”? 14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?

This verse comes from a chapter in Hebrews where the writer’s obvious premise was to demonstrate the absolute supremacy of the Son to his Jewish readers. It’s an apologetic work where the Hebrew OT texts are heavily drawn upon. This NT writer, like others, appeared to have no hesitancy at all applying to Yeshua OT quotations that exclusively reference YHWH. The OT quotations undoubtedly would have shocked the monotheistic Jews to the core, verses 10-12 especially so. It really is a christological tour de force, which reaches its climax in verses 8-12. It’s interesting to annotate the writer’s conveyances leading up to and immediately following verse 10. Here is a quick summary:

 

  • The “world” was made through Him (v 2)
  • He is said to be the radiance of the Father’s glory [Gr. doxa] (v 3)
  • He is the exact representation of the Father’s “hypostasis” [nature/substance] (v 3)
  • He “upholds [sustains] all things by the word of His power” (v 3)
  • The angels are commanded to worship Him [a sole prerogative of YHWH] (v 6)
  • He is called “God” (with the definite article) by the Father (v 8)
  • He is contrasted from false gods (v 11)
  • Is said to be immutable [an sole attribute of YHWH – e.g. Malachi 3:6] (v 12)

….and in amongst all these, what must have been startling affirmations (to the intended readers), we read this:

And,”YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

The writer of Hebrews was quoting Psalms 102:25 which was, of course, written about the Most High God, YHWH, as the context of the Psalm unmistakably bears out:

Psalm 102:19-27
19For He looked down from His holy height; From heaven the LORD gazed upon the earth, 20To hear the groaning of the prisoner, To set free those who were doomed to death, 21That men may tell of the name ofthe LORD in Zion And His praise in Jerusalem, 22When the peoples are gathered together, And the kingdoms, to serve the LORD. 23He has weakened my strength in the way; He has shortened my days. 24I say, “O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days, Your years are throughout all generations. 25″Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. 26″Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. 27″But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end. 28″The children of Your servants will continue, And their descendants will be established before You.”

Psalm 102:25 is a verse quite obviously written about YHWH, but according to the Hebrews’ writer it was, in reality, an utterance spoken by the Father to the Son. The Hebrew’s writer affirms that it was the Father Himself Who personally addresses His Son as THE Creator of the Universe! So here we have a clear elucidation of the Son’s exact role in the creation. To me this shows that the descriptive language in the OT dealing with YHWH’s act of Creation is, in the mind of the author, perfectly APPLICABLE TO the Logos.

Q) In what sense was Yeshua the Creator of the Heavens and Earth?

A) In the sense that was attributed to YHWH in Psalms 102:25!

Hebrews 1:10 shows that the pre-incarnate Jesus was the actual executor of all creation.

In anticipation of this objection (which I’ll paraphrase):

‘he was ascribed an attribute of YHWH, and therefore a passage outlining that attribute, on account of his role as agent’

…I answer:-

Would this not be a grossly misleading and irresponsible thing for the writer to do? He was no doubt schooled up on the laws governing blasphemy, and applying a verse that spoke of YHWH to a lesser being would certainly cross that line. Lesser beings are to be strongly segregated from the One true God, and no sound-thinking and scripturally-literate NT writer would, in writing an apologetic work about a lesser being, submit an OT verse that (even) ostensibly supports Him being YHWH. Unless of course He was YHWH, then it would be quite understandable. I would also say that IF the law of agency was being invoked here, and the verse simply shows that the Son is credited for having acted in the role of YHWH, then we should have other examples of this occurring with characters other than Yeshua. But can we find one t8? Who else in the Bible is ascribed an OT “YHWH” verse as a function of their agency? Maybe you can show me one…..

So, to legitimately extend this objection you will need to explain the writer’s rationale in applying this verse to Yeshua, even though He would have known He would be overtly misleading His Jewish readers about the identity of Yeshua and YHWH, and why he would risk contravening the laws governing blasphemy. You will also need to produce evidence showing that personages other than Yeshua, who likewise acted in the role of ‘agent’, have also ascribed to them passages from the OT that exclusively reference YHWH. Otherwise you are using a ‘law by exception’ as the very foundation of your refutation.

Just to briefly background the scriptural association between Yeshua and Creation, the fact that the pre-incarnate Logos was involved, in some capacity, in the creation of “all things” is a well established biblical precept. John 1:3, 10; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2 clearly bear this out. For example, in John 1:3 we read:

John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The statement “All things were made by him” is an astonishingly high statement to make of the Logos. And just to underscore this sentiment there is a exclusionist reiteration in the second part of the verse. There was nothing in the created order that was not made through Him. John could not have made a stronger distinction between the Creator and the “things” that He “made”

Paul concurs, writing an even more emphatic statement:

Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him

The language here is unambiguous, according to Paul the Logos created all things, this is an unqualifiedstatement that details precisely what the things were:- “things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities”. Moreover, they were made For Him (Yeshua). Here’s something interesting though, Proverbs 16:4 says that YHWH did it for Himself:

Proverbs 16:4
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

If the NT reveals that Christ did it for Himself and the OT reveals that YHWH did it for Himself then, so that basis alone, the logical conclusion is that Yeshua IS Creator YHWH, or else we have a blatant contradiction. And here’s another to consider, in Isaiah 44:24 YHWH declares that He did it “alone”. Job reiterated this in Job 9:8. Does the language in these passages leave any room for the possibility of two independent beings creating “all things”? I don’t think it does. It’s yet another logical dilemma for those that propose that Yeshua is not YHWH, but a lesser being.

At this point I anticipate you will likely be making this objection, which I’ll also paraphrase:

‘The word “dia” is rightly rendered ‘through’, and this word infers that the Logos was not the first cause of Creation but an agent that His father used to bring it into existence (but the Father is the ultimate power behind it).’

This rationale, of course, relegates the Logos to the status of a puppet, used in an instrumental way to achieve the creation. If this were true, and “dia” does connote that, then Romans 11:36 and Hebrews 2:10 challenge this dogma. The same language used in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 is also used of “God” in Romans 11:36 and Hebrews 2:10.

Romans 11:32-35
32For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. 33Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? 35Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? 36For from Him and through (Gr. dia) Himand to Him are all things To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

cf.

Hebrews 2:10
For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through (Gr. dia) whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

So to be consistent, you must also accept that “God” in the above two scriptures is not credited for doing the aforementioned things in the active and primary senses (i.e. He was not the ‘efficient cause’), but was rather an intermediary between the real first cause and the recipient, which is clearly ludicrous. So, given this, if this language in Romans 11:36 and Hebrews 2:10 is applicable to “God”, and still denotes that He is the ‘primary cause’ then on what grounds can you apply a different rule to Yeshua when “dia” is used in reference to Him? You can’t have it both ways.

Anyway, moving on. So we have clear scriptural witness attesting, at the very least, to Yeshua’s involvement in bringing about creation, but Hebrews 1:10 elucidates the capacity to which He was involved – according to this verse, and in the opinion of the Father, He was the executor of Creation in the exact sense that YHWH was described as being in Psalms 102:25, “His hands” laid the foundation of the Earth……what would His Jewish readers have made of this? Certainly the writer’s conclusion that Yeshua was YHWH is difficult to escape, especially so when all the data in Hebrews Chapter 1 is considered. Verses 10-12 would have left them with no doubt at all.

Okay now for the “fish hook” I alluded to in the beginning of this post.

Hebrews 1:10
And,”YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

Please note the highlighted word. Remembering that the texts from vs 5-12 are, according to the writer of Hebrews, attestations made by the Father to the Son (“But of the Son He says” –  vs 8), it’s evident that the Father actually addressed the Son as “Lord.” The Greek word “kurios” is used in most LXX manuscripts to render the Divine Name, YHWH. That’s well known. But also, when used in the NT as an honorific (“lord”) it signifies that the one addressed is superior in rank or station to the addresser. The slave addresses his mater as “lord”, not the other way around. This is principal is exceptionless.

So there are two possible scenarios here:

1) The Father was addressing the Son in a way that denoted His subservience, or inferiority in rank, to Yeshua. Or,

2) He was addressing the Son as YHWH.

I assert that #1 cannot be legitimate in light of the many NT verses where the Father is spoken as being “greater than” (i.e. superior in office) to the Son. So that leave only one possibility – The Father addresses the Son as YHWH. This would align perfectly with the context of Hebrews Ch 1 as a whole, which is about the absolute supremacy of the Son. It also fits precisely within the context of verses 10-12, which are OT quotations that manifestly reference YHWH…..

In summary, Hebrews 1:10 is a verse that cannot be overlooked by you t8. According to the writer of Hebrews this quotation from Psalms 102:25, was uttered by the Father to the Son. Yet when we examine the Psalm carefully it’s evident that it speaks exclusively of YHWH. Would a NT writer apply a verse that manifestly references YHWH to the Son if He were not YHWH? I say no. It’s inconceivable that he would do this, as it would grossly mislead the recipients of his letter about the identity of the Son, if He were not YHWH. Nor would he risk the consequence of overt blasphemy by audaciously elevating a lesser being to the status of Most High God, if He were not that God. And let’s bear in mind the context that this verse was placed into:

  • The “world” was made through Him (v 2)
  • He is said to be the radiance of the Father’s glory [Gr. doxa] (v 3)
  • He is the exact representation of the Father’s “hypostasis” [nature/substance] (v 3)
  • He “upholds [sustains] all things by the word of His power” (v 3)
  • The angels are commanded to worship Him [a sole prerogative of YHWH] (v 6)
  • He is called “God” (with the definite article) by the Father (v 8)
  • He is contrasted from false gods (v 11)
  • Is said to be immutable [an attribute of YHWH – e.g. Malachi 3:6] (v 12)

The writer in writing Hebrews Chapter 1 had a single overarching motive, to apologetically convey the absolute supremacy of the Son, Yeshua, to his Jewish readers. The chapter is a tour de force that climaxes in the declarations in vss 10-12 that establish Yeshua as THE immutable Creator of the Universe. So this verse has not been ripped out of context, it perfectly fits within the context of the Chapter in perfect harmony.

Okay, now for my questions relating to Hebrews 1:10.

Q1) Does Psalms 102:25 speak of the Father or Son?

Q2) Did the Father address the Son in Psalms 102:25 as the Creator of Earth and the Heavens? And if not please explain how and why your opinion differs from that of the writer of Hebrews.

Q3) Does the Father address the Son with the appellative “kurios” because He was speaking as the subservient, or because He (the Son) is YHWH, or is it because of another reason? [note: if you have a third scenario please produce evidence that the word “kurios” can legitimately be used that way in the NT]

I look forward to reading your answers…..

Blessings t8




t8

Hebrews 1:1-13

1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,

2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

5 For to which of the angels did He ever say,
“YOU ARE MY SON,
TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”?
And again,
“I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM
AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”?

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

7 And of the angels He says,
“WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS,
AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE.”

8 But of the Son He says,
“YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
9 “YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;
THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU
WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.”

10 And,
“YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH,
AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
11 THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN;
AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT,
12 AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP;
LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED
BUT YOU ARE THE SAME,
AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.”

13 But to which of the angels has He ever said,
“SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES
A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”?

The first thing that has to be said about this verse is that it doesn’t teach a Trinity just as you will find that no scripture does. Yet if there was even one scripture that taught the Trinity doctrine, I would assume that you would have quoted that one as your first one. Yet you choose this one which doesn’t teach the Trinity. If there was a biblical text that specifically taught the Trinity, then you could have blown me out of the water in your first post had you quoted it. I take it that you didn’t quote such a verse because it doesn’t exist.

In any case you use Hebrews to try and prove that Jesus is Yahweh and you say that Jesus is the actual creator. So lets think about that for a moment. If he is the actual creator, then one would have to assume that the Father wasn’t. But then you also say that all things were created through him. So even at this early stage in my rebuttal I provide proof that shows you are double minded on this issue. Which is it? Did he create everything, or was he the one whom God created through? I can’t see both as working, i.e., that Jesus who is God made everything through himself. It stands to reason that the Father made all things through the son does it not?

Now your choice of scripture is an interesting one because verse one starts off with “God” and talks about the son from God’s perspective.

So it is primarily focussed on two identities.

1. God
2. the son.

And it is focussed on what God says and thinks about the son.

Verse 8 & 9 appear to me that God is talking about the son, or what Paul is saying about what David is saying about what God is saying about the son.

8 But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
9 “YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.” 

He in the above verse must be God, or possibly the author. (I don’t have time to check this as my reply is delayed enough as it is.)

First thing to note though, is the son has a God and yet the Trinity doctrine tries to teach us that they both and another make up one God.

Anyway, verse 10 seems to be talking about the LORD and how he (&/or the author) sees the son. Not only is this evident from the fact that verse one starts off with the word “God” and then speaks about the son as another, followed by what He or the author says about the son in verses 8, but it is then obvious that it is God who is the HE in verse 13 because it says:

“But to which of the angels has He ever said, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”?”

So He is obviously the one spoken of in the immediate preceeding verses, ie., verse 10 – “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; which then means it is a verse about the LORD, not the son.

Think about it, the LORD/God says of his son, “sit at his right hand”. So He in verse 10 cannot be the son because if it was, then He in verse 13 would also be the son and that would then break verse 13 completely and render it as a verse that makes no sense.

So not only is it actually logical that the LORD who said to his son “sit at my right hand”, is the same LORD who laid the foundations for the earth and the heavens, but there are other witness scriptures to prove that the LORD and his son are 2 beings or identities.

Hebrews 1:3 (already quoted)
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Hebrews 8:1
The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 

Acts 7:55
But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God

Let’s face it, Jesus isn’t standing at the right hand of himself, rather the Majesty in Heaven who is God. Stephen saw Jesus at HIS (the Majesty) right hand. He didn’t see a Trinity did he? I wonder if you were there Isaiah if you would have believed Stephen’s witness as to seeing Jesus at HIS right hand, and not a Trinity being that I think you yourself would expect to see.

Anyway, to say that Jesus is actually the LORD, you would then be forced into rendering verse 13 as saying “JESUS says sit at my right hand”. Or if you say that LORD is the Trinity, then it says ‘The Father, Son, Spirit’ said to Jesus “Sit at my right hand”. Neither works does it? The only 2 possibilities that I can see are that the author (Paul) said that (David) said that God said “Sit at my right hand” or that he is just simply saying that God said it to the son”. Either way, it cannot be the son who says “Sits at my right hand”, therefore it cannot be the son who laid the foundations, for the LORD is the one who laid the foundations and He is the one who says “Sit at my right hand”.

I base this rebuttal on the translations as they were presented to me. I didn’t have the time to look deeply into the Greek and so there is also a possibility that a translation issue could add, edit, or correct what I have said above.

So to make this clearer, if my point hasn’t been made obvious thus far:
Try reading verse 10 to 13. It talks about the LORD and how he laid the foundations of creation, and then it talks about the LORD who says of his son, “Sit at my right hand”. Therefore this LORD cannot be Jesus because he is told to sit at the right hand of the LORD. It is verse 8 that seems to throw some off this, yet even before verse 8 it speaks of God and then his son followed by a description of the son, followed again by focusing back on what God said or thinks of his son. In other words you need to look carefully at when it is talking of God or the son. If there is an overlap, you then could confuse Jesus for God couldn’t you?

So to conclude, the person whom this whole perspective is being viewed through is God/LORD/YHWH (or possibly the original one who penned the scripture), and it is about how He (God) sees the/his son and what the LORD says about him. Hebrews even starts with the word God and then moves on to say how he has sent many (prophets) to speak on his behalf and yet who in their right mind would say that any of these prophets are God? Then it is written that he finally sent his son, and who in their right mind would say that the son is God? Well it appears that a certain doctrine that was devised centuries after the Book of Revelation was written causes some (including yourself) to believe this very thing.

From there it is all about what the LORD says and thinks of his son. At times the LORD is spoken of directly and other times he is quoted such as “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”, when he is speaking of the son.

I leave you with the following verses and wonder how it is possible that you could believe them as they seem to contradict you view:

John 1:10
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 

John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 

So now to your three questions:

Q1) Does Psalms 102:25 speak of the Father or Son?

I would say that it is the Father. In Hebrews it actually says “I will be a Father to him”. Who will be a Father to him? Well it is God/LORD who will be a Father to him.

Q2) Did the Father address the Son in Psalms 102:25 as the Creator of Earth and the Heavens? And if not please explain how and why your opinion differs from that of the writer of Hebrews.

It appears to me that it is David (the writer of that Psalm) who is addressing God.

Q3) Does the Father address the Son with the appellative “kurios” because He was speaking as the subservient, or because He (the Son) is YHWH, or is it because of another reason? [note: if you have a third scenario please produce evidence that the word “kurios” can legitimately be used that way in the NT]

I don’t think it is the Father addressing the son at all, if you are talking of Hebrews 1:10 “YOU, LORD..,”.

OK I have given my rebuttal. Now even though I took my time in replying I would have liked more time to check out the original language to see if what I am saying is so. I do not claim that all I say is true, but that I am a human who struggles with his sinful nature who desires to be perfect and so to that end, I am open to learning what others have to say and of course I am open to changing my mind. My only interest here is that the truth wins. I care less that I win and I am more than willing to change when truth is presented to me. So far your argument that Jesus is the LORD/YHWH/GOD hasn’t even got close to convincing me, but has only made me look deeper into that which I do believe.


  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 20 posts - 381 through 400 (of 442 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #64918
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    Some people just can't handle the truth. So they cast you out. Beware when all men speak well of you for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

    Mr. Steve

    #64937
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    SO TELL US T8. Is it ok to worship a created being? What you are advocating is idolatry!

    Jesus was worshipped because He is God.

    TITUS 2:13 awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ :O

    2Pe 3:16  as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable pervert, as also they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. :O

    #64942
    charity
    Participant

    And as I was saying CB; thank you for your input; it helps us all to see what is in our own individual hearts; its only possible to be what we are in all truth; and that then is expectable before GOD; BEING FOUND IN ALL TRUTH WITHIN.

    This debate would have been nothing without Isaiah; his time and efforts are by no means wasted
    :)

    #64976
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    CB;

    Revelation 3:9 says “I will make them who are of the synagogue of Satan who say they are Jews and are not, to come and worship before thy feet.” This is very interesting. When Christ said “say they are Jews” he of course meant spiritually. Moreover, he said they were really of the synagogue of Satan, but representing themselves as Christians. Do you think they were deceived, or they were just deceiving others?

    Steven

    #64977
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    CB;

    Christ was worshipped because it was God's will for him to be honored to the same degree as the Father, but he is not the Father. Christ is the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world. Christ is the Savior and is worshipped as such.

    Steven

    #65008
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    Mr Steve.

    We are not to worship created beings; not even angels. Worship belongs to God.

    Rev 22:8  And I John am he that heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel that showed me these things.
    Rev 22:9  And he saith unto me, See thou do it not: I am a fellow-servant with thee and with thy brethren the prophets, and with them that keep the words of this book: worship God.

    Jesus was worshipped because He is Jehovah God.    

    Mat 28:9  And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

    #65149
    kejonn
    Participant

    Yahshua was worshiped and is to be worshiped, but not as God, but the Son of God. And his worship was not an automatic right, it was given

    Hbr 1:6   And then, when he presented his honored Son to the world, God said, “Let all the angels of God worship him.”

    If Yahshua was and is God, why would the Father have to make the statement “Let all of the angels of God worship him”? The Father directed the angels to worship God. The Father allows this because Yahshua is His Son, in whom He is well pleased! And to honor the Son is to honor the One who sent him. Yahshua did not send himself, did he?

    #65669
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 30 2007,04:03)
    We are not to worship created beings; not even angels. Worship belongs to God.

    Rev 22:8  And I John am he that heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel that showed me these things.
    Rev 22:9  And he saith unto me, See thou do it not: I am a fellow-servant with thee and with thy brethren the prophets, and with them that keep the words of this book: worship God.

    Jesus was worshipped because He is Jehovah God.    

    Mat 28:9  And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.


    Kejonn. Worship belongs to God alone. I you worship any other thab God, it is idolatry. Jesus was worshipped because Jesus is God.

    LOOK AGAIN!

    #65670
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    .

    Mat 28:9  And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

               
                                                         Worship Jesus our God :O

    #65702
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ Sep. 10 2007,13:00)
    Mat 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

    Worship Jesus our God :O


    Was he worshipped as God or the son of God?
    Let scripture interpret scripture:

    Matthew 14:33
    Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

    Bias sees what it wants to see, but scripture is given for reproof and correction.

    #66230
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    To all:

    It's time we call a spade a spade and to oppose any doctrine that denies that Christ is the Son of God is against what Christ taught. Some may rest that God winks at ignorance, but how long will he wink? Jesus said that those who do not believe that he is the Son of God are condemned already. God has not called us to be spiritual politicians. We can't serve two masters. Paul said if I seek to please men I should not be the servant of Christ. Find something else to do.

    Many “believers” conclude that Jesus was worshipped because he was God. Again, this extrapolation of scripture contradicts scripture. Jesus denied that he was God. He said he was the Son of God. He is to be worshipped as the Son of God and because God has “made” him to be Lord of heaven and earth.

    Jesus said there is only one God and it was the first commandment to love him with all your heart. He did not include himself as God when he had many opportunities to do so. Even the unbelieving Jews according to the flesh said that he made himself to be the Son of God.

    The enemy, Satan, is out to deceive no matter how he achieves it. When you declare that Christ is God you deny that he is the Son of God. If you deny that Christ is the Son of God you cannot have eternal life. The devil is pleased with those who deny that Christ is the Son of God. To please God you must believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

    When the disciples declared that Christ was the Son of God, Jesus said upon this rock he would build his church. If you want to be a part of the church, you must believe that Christ is the Son of God. If you believe he is God, you deny he is the Son of God, and your doctrine is not of God, regardless of your intent. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Be not deceived.

    The days of religious patronizing are over. If a person does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God he cannot have eternal life. Any other gospel deviates from what all the prophets, apostles, and Christ gave their lives for us to believe and to declare. If we declare another gospel we should be prepared to answer to God and face shame before all those who declared that Christ was the Son of God and were martyred for the rock of that truth.

    But the devil is a deceiver and he knows that the most effective deception is religious deception. Be not deceived. Read the scriptures. Read the scriptures that address the issue. Bring up your Strong's Concordance online and do a word search on the Son of God. You'll find that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God more than any other title. The word of God is the authority. Not one person in the Bible declared that Jesus was God the Father. Perhaps the greatest statement is by the Father himself at Christ baptism, the sermon on the mount, and in the Temple, where the Father spake and declared this is my Son. The Father did not say this is me Jehovah. So those that make such a declaration that Christ is Jehovah are either ignorant, unbelieving, or suffering from a religous deception.

    Behold, he comes quickly!!!

    Steven

    #66238
    kejonn
    Participant

    Steve,

    I'm curious…do you know what the doctrine of the trinity is? No good trinitarian will believe that Yeshua is God the Father. They will say that he is God the Son, although that moniker never occurs in the Bible. Nor does God the Holy Spirit. But what you keep mentioning is more akin to sabellism or oneness, not the trinity. The only one on here that says “Jesus Jehovah God” is CultBuster.

    So you will not see WJ or Is 1:18 ever say Yeshua is God the Father. They see God as a singular essence made up of three “persons”. Even “persons” is not the best word but it is used. They will freely admit that Yeshua is the Son of God, but that he is also God. Just like you are a human, and your offspring is human.

    I've not been able to pin any of them down on this (that I can remember) but I think I asked them if they thought that Yeshua was one “person” of God, or one “person” of YHWH. There IS a difference, believe it or not! Even these verses lead to that:

    Deu 6:4   “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!  
    Deu 6:5   “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.  

    If you look closely at Deu 6:4, what does it say? “YHWH is our God”. In other words, there are many supposed “gods” out there, and the people all around the Israelites served them, but the proclamtion here is the YHWH is the God of Israel. And the statement is not that God is one, but that YHWH is one. Read it and see if that is not the case!

    But there is still one problem. While it says that YHWH is one, it also says that He is the God of Israel. The OT never speaks of another God, only YHWH.

    So, we're back to this: is YHWH triune, or is He the Father of the triune God? That is the question for trinitarians to answer.

    #66242
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    Kejonn;

    When they say that Jesus is God they are saying he is Jehovah. Jehovah is the Father. WJ does say that Christ is the Almighty. The Almighty is Jehovah in the scriptures. The trinity declares all three eternally co-existent. That declaration contradicts the scriptures, which declare Christ to be the Son of God. A Son cannot eternally co-exist with his father, otherwise, he is not a son, but another being.

    Take Care

    Steven

    #66249
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    As Christians we should understand the elementary teachings of Christ. The most basic of truths regarding Jesus is that he is the son of God and the messiah.

    Yes there are cleverly devised doctrines that lead men away from this elementary truth and they should be exposed for what they are.

    #66278

    Steve

    You say…

    Quote

    We can't serve two masters. Paul said if I seek to please men I should not be the servant of Christ. Find something else to do.

    I am curious you say that “we can't serve two masters”, but then quote Paul saying we should be the servants of Christ.

    Do you serve “God” the Father. If Jesus is not God and you serve Jesus and the Father, then you have 2 masters, is this not correct?

    ???

    #66279

    Steve

    you say…

    Quote

    Jesus said there is only one God and it was the first commandment to love him with all your heart.  He did not include himself as God when he had many opportunities to do so.

    Tell me. Do you love and serve the Father more than Jesus?

    Is there a limit to how much we should Love and serve Jesus?

    Can we Love the Father apart from or more than the Son?

    If Not and Yeshua is not God then we break the first commandment.

    Mk 12:30
    And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

    :)

    #66307
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    WJ;

    Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes unto the Father but by and through Christ. We serve God through Christ. God exalted Christ and gave him a name which is above every name. If it is true that God gave all that he had to give to Christ, then before Christ received all from the Father he did not have all. Otherwise, it would not have been necessary to give all things into his hands. Certainly, if he already had all things he would be God himself. The new testament is bursting at the seams with that truth. It's everywhere throughout the gospels and the epistles-God's work in Christ.

    With respect to the next question, do I love and serve the Father more than Jesus? I honor God through honoring Christ. To the degree you honor Christ and what he taught you honor God. If I make a declaration such as Christ is eternal and thereby deny his sonship, I dishonor Christ and dishonor the Father from whom he is begotten. If I made such a declaration I would be like unto you.

    There is no limit to how much you should love and serve Jesus. You should love him with all your heart. But as Christ said when he quoted Isaiah, these people honor me with their lips but their heart is far from me. Why? Because they love the praise of men more than the praise of God. Just like many in the days of Christ, they believed in their hearts that he was the Messiah, but would not confess him lest they be put out of the synagogue. Today, many Christians will not confess Christ as the Son of God lest they be put out of the church. Any doctrine that teaches that Christ always existed as the Son of God denies the truth that Christ was begotten by God. If Christ was always the Son of God then he had no Father since he always was. Jesus taught that all that he did was a result of being taught by God his Father.

    We cannot love the Father apart from loving the Son. When we accept Christ we accept the Father who sent him. Jesus taught ye do not know the Father if ye do not believe he was sent from the Father. If ye do not believe he is the Son ye cannot enter into life but are condemned already.

    Finally, you conclude, If we cannot love the Father a part from the Son and Jesus is not God, we break the first commandment. In what way is your conclusion inconsistent with what Christ taught?

    Take Care

    Steven

    #66362

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 18 2007,18:41)
    Steve

    You say…

    Quote

    We can't serve two masters.  Paul said if I seek to please men I should not be the servant of Christ.   Find something else to do.

    I am curious you say that “we can't serve two masters”, but then quote Paul saying we should be the servants of Christ.

    Do you serve “God” the Father. If Jesus is not God and you serve Jesus and the Father, then you have 2 masters, is this not correct?

    ???


    steve

    I repeat. You didnt answer the question.

    You say…

    Quote

    We can't serve two masters.  Paul said if I seek to please men I should not be the servant of Christ.   Find something else to do.

    I am curious you say that “we can't serve two masters”, but then quote Paul saying we should be the servants of Christ.

    Do you serve “God” the Father. If Jesus is not God and you serve Jesus and the Father, then you have 2 masters, is this not correct?

    ???

    #66363

    Quote (Mr. Steve @ Sep. 19 2007,06:15)
    WJ;

    Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No man comes unto the Father but by and through Christ.  We serve God through Christ.  God exalted Christ and gave him a name which is above every name.  If it is true that God gave all that he had to give to Christ, then before Christ received all from the Father he did not have all.  Otherwise, it would not have been necessary to give all things into his hands.  Certainly, if he already had all things he would be God himself. The new testament is bursting at the seams with that truth.  It's everywhere throughout the gospels and the epistles-God's work in Christ.

    With respect to the next question, do I love and serve the Father more than Jesus? I honor God through honoring Christ.  To the degree you honor Christ and what he taught you honor God.  If I make a declaration such as Christ is eternal and thereby deny his sonship, I dishonor Christ and dishonor the Father from whom he is begotten.  If I made such a declaration I would be like unto you.

    There is no limit to how much you should love and serve Jesus.  You should love him with all your heart.  But as Christ said when he quoted Isaiah, these people honor me with their lips but their heart is far from me.  Why? Because they love the praise of men more than the praise of God.  Just like many in the days of Christ, they believed in their hearts that he was the Messiah, but would not confess him lest they be put out of the synagogue.  Today, many Christians will not confess Christ as the Son of God lest they be put out of the church.  Any doctrine that teaches that Christ always existed as the Son of God denies the truth that Christ was begotten by God.  If Christ was always the Son of God then he had no Father since he always was.  Jesus taught that all that he did was a result of being taught by God his Father.  

    We cannot love the Father apart from loving the Son.  When we accept Christ we accept the Father who sent him. Jesus taught ye do not know the Father if ye do not believe he was sent from the Father.   If ye do not believe he is the Son ye cannot enter into life but are condemned already.

    Finally, you conclude, If we cannot love the Father a part from the Son and Jesus is not God, we break the first commandment.  In what way is your conclusion inconsistent with what Christ taught?

    Take Care

    Steven


    Mr steve

    You still didnt answer my question.

    Sons are born. Sons have a beginning.

    When you say “Jesus” was a son before he was born a Son, then you are saying Jesus was born again.

    This would be in my opinion “Reincarnation”.

    Please show me a scripture where Jesus is called the “Son of God' prior to his coming in the flesh.

    Lk 1:35
    And 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.

    Jesus was not born twice.

    He was the Word that was with God and the Word that was God!

    Mic 5:2
    But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

    You say…

    Quote

    If I make a declaration such as Christ is eternal and thereby deny his sonship, I dishonor Christ and dishonor the Father from whom he is begotten.  If I made such a declaration I would be like unto you.

    Hear this…”I believe Jesus is the Son of God”.

    You have never heard me deny he is the son. Because the Jesus I serve is not the same Jesus you serve gives you no right to say I dishonor him and the Father.

    Your statement is not only arrogant and ugly and condemning and full of pride, but is also a lie!

    :O

    #66364

    mr steve

    These are you words..

    Quote

    With respect to the pre-existence of Jesus as the Son of God, the scriptures are very clear.  Three times in John 1, John the Baptist says that “he” (Jesus) is preferred before me because he (Jesus) was before me.  Christ also said many times that he was from above and would go back to where he was before.  If “he” does not refer to a person, what does it refer to?  Jesus is not merely the word made flesh, Jesus Christ came in the flesh and dwelt among us.  Otherwise, if Christ was merely the word made flesh he could not have made any of the statements about having been with the Father and having seen God. John 6:46.  Moreover, if he was merely the word made flesh than he was no different than us with the exception that he did not need to be born again because he knew no sin.  That is not the case.

    Please answer my post…

    Mr steve

    You still didnt answer my question.

    Sons are born. Sons have a beginning.

    When you say “Jesus” was a son before he was born a Son, then you are saying Jesus was born again.

    This would be in my opinion “Reincarnation”.

    Please show me a scripture where Jesus is called the “Son of God' prior to his coming in the flesh.

    Lk 1:35
    And 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.

    Jesus was not born twice.

    He was the Word that was with God and the Word that was God!

    Mic 5:2
    But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

    You say…

    Quote

    If I make a declaration such as Christ is eternal and thereby deny his sonship, I dishonor Christ and dishonor the Father from whom he is begotten.  If I made such a declaration I would be like unto you.

    Hear this my friend…”I believe Jesus is the Son of God”.

    You have never heard me deny he is the son. It seems the Jesus I serve is not the same Jesus you serve, but that gives you no right to say I dishonor him and the Father.

    Your statement is not only arrogant and ugly and condemning and full of pride, but is also a lie!

    :O

Viewing 20 posts - 381 through 400 (of 442 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account