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 - 401 through 420 (of 442 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #66412
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    WJ;

    Christ declared that he was with the Father before coming to the earth. He said he came down from heaven. He said what if you see the son of man ascend up to where he (Jesus) was before. It's crystal clear in the Gospel of John. You know the scriptures. If you would like to read them, read the gospel of John, or do a word search. I gave you three scriptures in the first chapter of John. Jesus states throughout the gospel that the Father sent him and that he was with the Father. He said he came not of his own will, but the will of him that sent him. A word does not have a will, but a person does have a will.

    The truth can be very disturbing but it is nonetheless the truth. Christ own disciples were very disturbed hearing some of the things Christ taught. The apostle Paul could also be very disturbing. We are not called to tickle each other's ears. We show each other the truth in the word. If the truth rubs you the wrong way turn around.

    Every trinitarian I know believes that the Son co-existed with the Father before coming to the earth. I contend that he did exist, just not eternally. Otherwise, he would not be a Son if he was never begotten by God. You are bringing to light a fact that I was not aware of – some trinitarians do not believe that Christ existed as the Son of God prior to coming to earth. If his beginning was only on earth he would have beginning of days so that cannot be. He is without beginning of days. Days refer to life on earth. Christ was with the Father before coming to the earth.

    Here's the truth. Christ was begotten by the Father before coming to earth. He said he (Jesus) existed with the Father before the world was. John 17:5 Since Christ said God was his Father and existed prior to the world, then he was begotten by God before the world was. When you say that Christ eternally existed you deny his sonship because at some point in time a son is born. I'm speaking in general terms. I not saying just you WJ, I'm saying any person that believes that Christ eternally co-existed denies his sonship because the statement indicates he was not a Son, but an eternal being.

    John 6:46 Jesus states he is the only one who has seen the Father. He declared many times his Father was in heaven. Christ could not have meant the Father who was with him in Spirit or the Father from the perspective of him residing in the Son because he told his disciples that if they saw him they had seen the Father. Consequently, he could have only meant the fact that he was in the bosom of the Father before coming to earth. The bosom is straight in front of the person between the arms.

    Hear this, do you need me to site all the times you have posted on this site that Jesus is God. Your doctrine confuses the Son and the Father. God is not the author of confusion. Your declarations are abundant in this respect. You are the one that still must answer the fundamental questions I posted to you over and over such as, If Christ is the Son of God, how is he also God? You teach that Christ is God and equal with the Father. I believe that Christ is the Son of God, not God. The Father has made him Lord of heaven and earth, but he is still subject to his Father. Your problem with me is that I don't fit nicely into one of your little boxes. With all respect, I strongly believe that when a person believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and also God, the belief is contradictory and unbiblical. Where in the word does Jesus say he is eternal? He doesn't. I would honestly suggest inputting the phrase “Son of God” into a Strong's Concordance online word search. You will be stunned to see that Christ is referred to as the Son of God by angels, devils, disciples, unbelievers, those who crucified him, even God himself at Christ baptism. The proper identification of persons is critical, even within the Godhead.

    Take care

    Steven

    #66417

    mr steve

    Listen my friend. Apparantly there is a missunderstanding as to what I believe.

    I have posted over 3300 times on this board in 1 year.

    You have never seen me ever deny the pre-existence of Jesus or the fact that he is the Son of God.

    The confusion lies in the fact that I believe that Yeshua before he took on the likeness of sinful flesh and became the “Son of God” was YHWH, the Word that was with God and the Word that was God.

    Or else John could have wrote…

    Jn 1;1
    In the beginning was the Son of God, and the Son of God was with God, and the Son of God was God.

    No scripture says Christ was a Son before he was born a Son. This is the miracle of incarnation. God was manifest in the flesh. Not re-incarnation!

    Christ said he was with the Father and would return back to the Father. but he never said he was a Son before he was born into this world.

    He is the “Eternal life” that John spoke of in 1 Jn 1:1-3 that was with the Father from the begining.

    If he was the “Eternal life” then that means he never had beginning of life.

    Paul speaks of Jesus as being in the “form” of God. Phil 2, before he took on the likeness of sinfull flesh.

    Paul also could have said he was the “Son of God” before he came in the flesh. But he didnt. There is lots of scriptural evidence Yeshua s the God of the Old Testament that appeared to Abraham and Moses and others. He was and is the “Image of God” and has always been with the Father from eternity.

    Please try not accusing someone of their beliefs untill you know what they believe. Even then, statements that imply they are anti-Christ when they acknowledge and believe in Yeshua is worng.

    IMO

    Maybe this sight can help.

    http://www.eadshome.com/Jesuslessons.htm

    Blessings!

    :)

    #66418

    mr steve

    You said…

    Quote

    If Christ is the Son of God, how is he also God?  You teach that Christ is God and equal with the Father.  I believe that Christ is the Son of God, not God.  The Father has made him Lord of heaven and earth, but he is still subject to his Father.

    No offence to you but this is such a weak and fallacious argument.

    Your father may be greater than you in rank but not in “Being”, and you are not the same person, however you are both 100% human.

    Your Father is no greater than you ontologically.

    The first book of our bible shows God is plural. Plurality of unity is found in all of creation which reveals the glory of God.

    Gen 1:1
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    Hebrew word for God is 'elohiym’ which is a plural word.

    Later in the chapter we read…

    26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth
    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them
    .

    Since we know that God has only one image and he has not shared that image with any other creature but man, for man is the one God has chosen to have dominion over all, then we know when he says above let us make man in our image and after our likeness that he couldn’t have been speaking to any other creature like angels.

    We know that the image of the invisible God is Yeshua and the Father was speaking to Yeshua and the Holy Spirit who was moving over the face of the waters.

    How many scriptures do we have to white out or change if we say Jesus is not God, one with the Father and the Holy Spirit? ???

    So what has changed?

    Nothing from the very beginning. God has made it known to us and men have changed it.

    You said…

    Quote

    The proper identification of persons is critical, even within the Godhead.  

    Absolutly, Thomas who once doubted, doubted no more, and Jesus nor John rebuked him for saying it.

    Jn 20:28
    And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
    29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because *thou hast seen me*, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

    Some would say that Thomas was a doubter when he said this, but they miss the whole point…

    Jesus said…because *thou hast seen me*, thou hast believed:

    Thomas was not doubting any more!

    Blessings!!!

    :)

    #66421
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 28 2007,22:45)
    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


    Jesus was begotten and he is worshipped/honoured as the son of God and the Lamb of God, but not as God.
    That is what scripture shows us.

    I am not advocating that anyone worship a created being as God and never have.

    It is you that advocates that the son of God be worhipped as God and you worship 3 as God, whereas I teach that we worship one as God.

    #66448
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    T8,
    Where in scripture are we explicitly warned about worshipping Yeshua “as God”? Which biblical writer cautions us against extolling Him too highly?

    #66451
    Stu
    Participant

    I don't think there is a god for Jesus to have been the son of.

    Hope this helps!

    Stuart

    #66454
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 20 2007,20:11)
    T8,
    Where in scripture are we explicitly warned about worshipping Yeshua “as God”? Which biblical writer cautions us against extolling Him too highly?


    There is also no caution as to worshipping Michael the Angel as God either or extolling him to highly. Where is it written that a woman shouldn't extol a man too highly?

    It quite simply doesn't need to because it is not relevant.

    It is also not demonstrated anywhere that Jesus was worshiped as God. He was honoured and worshiped as the son of God and the Lamb of God. That is certainly demonstrated.

    #66459
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (Stu @ Sep. 20 2007,04:07)
    I don't think there is a god for Jesus to have been the son of.

    Hope this helps!

    Stuart


    You must be getting bored with the other threads :laugh:.

    #66472

    Quote (Stu @ Sep. 20 2007,21:07)
    I don't think there is a god for Jesus to have been the son of.

    Hope this helps!

    Stuart


    stu

    Then you dont think there is a human that you are a son too! ???

    #66474
    IM4Truth
    Participant

    Does anybody ever consider that God was a title. God has been used for other Kings and Emperors before. Jesus did exist before the world began. Will give scriptures, but I want to say this first. Before He became Man there is no other name given to Him except that He was the Word in John 1. But that does not make Him equal with the Father. He came forth from the Father, He was not formed out of the dust of the earth like us Humans, before He became a man. Here are some scriptures that I believe are clear to me that He did existed before the beginning of all. But He did not always existed like the Father. He had a beginning.

    Col. 1:15 Rev. 3:14, Prov. 8:22-30 Col. 1:16, Col. 1:18

    I believe that Col. 1:18 is a very important scripture, it shows that He is the Head of the Church, who is the beginning, the firstborn form the dead; that in all things He might have the Preeminence . Preeminence means first in all.
    So I asked those that do not believe in the preexistence of Jesus. What does that mean?
    When you read in the James Moffatt version of the Bible it explains it so beautiful about what Jesus was to God before the world was created. Proverb 8 Please read it.

    Peace and Love Mrs.

    #66478
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    WJ;

    I would like to extend an apology to you for insulting your faith. God convicted me of veering from the path of teaching the faith to being as you stated, ugly, cruel, and arrogant. I actually lost sleep last night. I'm sorry. I was out of line. I ask you to forgive me for that and for all the other times that I have been unkind, unloving, and a legend in my own mind.

    I perceive you love the Lord with all your heart, never think that I'm challenging your walk with God and faith in Christ. I hope you can forgive me. The Lord has shown me that I hurt people without realizing it and need to show more kindness and walk in love, not contentiousness.

    On a brighter note, God has shown me that what is occurring here brother WJ can be very marvellous orovided its done in the right spirit. If it wasn't for you I wouldn't be renewing fundamental truths that are necessary for understanding the gospel such as Christ was sent, Christ came down from heaven, and Christ is the Son of God.

    When Christ said he was with the Father before, he refers to himself. So he himself was with the Father. Christ never referred to being born of God on earth because he was already the Son of God. He said he came down from heaven to do his father's will, not his own will. He didn't say he was born into the world to do his father's will. What you're are arguing is that Christ did not exist before the Virgin Mary. John the Baptist said he did. Jesus himself said he existed before Abraham.

    Jesus said ye are from beneath, I am from above. Ye are of this world, I am not of this world. John 8:23 If I said to you I'm from New York where my father lives, too, and my father sent me down to Miami on business, would you interpret that to mean that I was the son of my father in New York? Or, would you say to yourself, He never said he was the son of his father, he just said his father lives there, too? Doesn't the statement “my father sent me” include the inherent fact that I must be his son. Otherwise, I could not claim that he was my father. So when Christ said he came down from heaven because his father sent him he must have been the Son of God in heaven.

    Jesus said I know him because I am from him and he hath sent me. John 7:29 Jesus did not say that he was born of him in this scripture, but that he was “from” him.

    Let's look at your argument. You believe the beginning of Christ as the Son of God was when he was born of the Virgin Mary.

    Can you and I make any of the claims that Christ made such as: Father I desire to be with you in the glory that I had with you before the world was? John 17:5 I contend that if Christ was not a person as the Son of God, he did not exist. He refers to a person and Christ refers to God as his father.

    Can you and I claim that we have seen God as Christ claimed? John 6:46

    Can you and I claim that we are going to heaven where we were before? John 6:62

    Can you and I claim to have existed before John the Baptist? John says three times he is preferred before me because he was before me.

    Can you and I claim to have come from heaven above? John 3:31

    Can you and I claim that we were sent from the Father above?

    Jesus said the “he” was the bread of life that came down from heaven. Christ refers to himself as a person. He said the “he” came down from heaven so he must have been in heaven before coming to earth. He also said that he was with the Father in heaven and proceeded from the Father. Again, he could not refer to God as his Father if he were not his son.

    You said that Jesus was the Word which was YHWH before becoming the Son of God. I submit to you, what you are stating is that Jesus the Son of God did not come down from heaven, but that he was the Word which was with God and was God came down from heaven. Essentially, what your statement says is that the Father came down from heaven, not that Jesus the Son of God came down from heaven because you state the beginning of the Son of God was when the Word was made flesh. This is inconsistent with the scriptures because Christ said repeatedly that the Father sent him down from heaven, thereby, establishing that he was with the Father in heaven as the Son of God and was under the authority of his Father. When Christ was born of God in heaven he was the Son of God at that point in time, whenever that was in eternity past. He never changed identities. He wasn't the Word, which is God, and then the Son of God. Jesus Christ has been the same since he was begotten by God – the Son of God.

    In light of the above, you just posted me and stated, “You have never seen me ever deny the pre-existence of Jesus or the fact that he is the Son of God.” In your same post you state he was the Word, which was YHWH, and was not the Son of God until he took on the likeness of sinful flesh. Those two statement are polar opposite claims.

    The scripture is very clear, the Word was God, not the Son of God, whom you state did not exist until the word was made flesh, yet at the same time state that you never have denied the pre-existence of Christ. Which one do you believe. You cannot claim both, each claim contradicts the other.

    You are teaching that Christ changed identities. You are teaching He was the Word, which the scriptures say is God, not the Son of God, and then changed from the Word God to the Son of God. It just occurred to me you're also stating, albeit inadvertently, that God changed, you say Christ was the Word which is God and then became the Son of God. Wow.

    Remember, I'm not questioning your love for God, just your beliefs.

    Take Care

    Steven

    #66485
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Quote (kejonn @ Sep. 20 2007,23:18)

    Quote (Stu @ Sep. 20 2007,04:07)
    I don't think there is a god for Jesus to have been the son of.

    Hope this helps!

    Stuart


    You must be getting bored with the other threads  :laugh:.


    KJ,

    As a fairly new member, you have demonstrated much patience and knowledge. Thank you for representing our Lord well (many are listening and learning – their salvation could be at hand….) Bless you as you keep seeking…. Hope you are here for a long time to come.

    See you in a month or two,
    Love,
    Mandy

    #66500
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (IM4Truth @ Sep. 21 2007,05:28)
    Does anybody ever consider that God was a title. God has been used for other Kings and Emperors before. Jesus did exist before the world began. Will give scriptures, but I want to say this first. Before He became Man there is no other name given to Him except that He was the Word in John 1. But that does not make Him equal with the Father. He came forth from the Father, He was not formed out of the dust of the earth like us Humans, before He became a man. Here are some scriptures that I believe are clear to me that He did existed before the beginning of all. But He did not always existed like the Father. He had a beginning.

    Col. 1:15 Rev. 3:14, Prov. 8:22-30 Col. 1:16, Col. 1:18

    I believe that Col. 1:18 is a very important scripture, it shows that He is the Head of the Church, who is the beginning, the firstborn form the dead; that in all things He might have the Preeminence . Preeminence means first in all.
    So I asked those that do not believe in the preexistence of Jesus. What does that mean?
    When you read in the James Moffatt version of the Bible it explains it so beautiful about what Jesus was to God before the world was created. Proverb 8 Please read it.

    Peace and Love Mrs.


    Thanks IM4Truth.

    :)

    #66535
    Stu
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2007,05:04)

    Quote (Stu @ Sep. 20 2007,21:07)
    I don't think there is a god for Jesus to have been the son of.

    Hope this helps!

    Stuart


    stu

    Then you dont think there is a human that you are a son too! ???


    Well, I've been asked more ridiculous questions in these forums. By the logic of some here, buses, houses and watches have parents too!

    Stuart

    #66568

    Quote (Stu @ Sep. 21 2007,19:34)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2007,05:04)

    Quote (Stu @ Sep. 20 2007,21:07)
    I don't think there is a god for Jesus to have been the son of.

    Hope this helps!

    Stuart


    stu

    Then you dont think there is a human that you are a son too! ???


    Well, I've been asked more ridiculous questions in these forums.   By the logic of some here, buses, houses and watches have parents too!

    Stuart


    stu

    Maybe I miss understood you! ???

    Plz clarify your statement.

    :)

    #66570
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    WJ;

    Every time that Christ says his Father sent him, he is declaring within the same statement that he was the Son of God at the time he was sent. He says where he came from- the Father which is in heaven who is his God.

    Again, your declaration that he was the Word before coming to earth is incorrect because the Word is God. The Word bears witness in heaven and changes not, nor does God change. Your doctrine claims that Christ pre-existed as you claim, but in reality the doctrine denies that Christ existed with the Fathe as the Son of God.

    With respect to the Father being greater than the Son. Jesus gives a long list statement showing how the Father is greater. I've submitted them to you many times.

    Take care

    Steven

    #66579
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Quote (t8 @ Sep. 20 2007,11:42)
    Jesus was begotten and he is worshipped/honoured as the son of God and the Lamb of God, but not as God.
    That is what scripture shows us.


    Hello T8,
    I was responding to this comment you made. It implies that there is a kind of worship/honour that is appropriate for YHWH and another kind that is appropriate for Yeshua. If that were true there would be good scriptural evidence for it. But where is it? I can give you two proof texts where Yeshua is shown to recieve the same worship and honour as the Father (Rev 5:13-14, John 5:23). What scripture can you give me to substantiate your position t8?

    :)

    #66586
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    But he is not worshipped as God.

    As the son of God and the Lamb of God. But not God.

    #66588
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Alright t8. Show us this is true – from the context of the Revelation passage. Can you also list some scriptures that give credence to your position that there is a kind of honour/worship that is appropriate for Yeshua, and this differs from the kind that only YHWH can legitimately recieve?

    #66616
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote
    Alright t8. Show us this is true – from the context of the Revelation passage. Can you also list some scriptures that give credence to your position that there is a kind of honour/worship that is appropriate for Yeshua, and this differs from the kind that only YHWH can legitimately recieve?


    First off, Jesus is at God's right hand side.

    Then you just need to look at these scriptures:

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

    Revelation 5:13
    Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!”

    Revelation 7:10
    And they cried out in a loud voice: “Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.”

    God is not worhipped/honoured as the Lamb and as the son.

Viewing 20 posts - 401 through 420 (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