Plural god

Participant

REBUTTAL# 4:

Mike said:

Quote

Jack says the NT has scripture that says “Jesus SPOKE all things into being”. I submit there is no such scripture and ask that he list said scripture.

My reply:

Again, John 1:1-3 EXPLICITLY says that the “Word” was in the beginning with God and that all things came into being by Him. The Greek “logos” comes from the verb “lego” which means “to speak.” All the names of God and of Christ speak about their acts. The name “Word” indicates that Jesus was in the beginning with God acting in a way that was characteristic of His name. I asked Mike what the Word was doing if not speaking and He has not answered.

Mike:

Quote

Jack refers to Heb 1:10, which says,
10He also says,

]”In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth…”

But the Greek doesn't have the words “He also says”, so his implication that it is literally God speaking these words about the Son is unfounded. Now if he means the Father said this in the sense that all scripture is the living word of God and inspired by Him, then I offer Acts 4:24-30 NIV,[/color]

My reply:

Verse 8 CLEARLY indicates that the Father was addressing Jesus and the conjunction “AND” in verse 10 indicates that the Father was still addressing Jesus.

Quote

8But UNTO THE SON HE SAITH, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

10AND, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

Mike:

Quote

This is a prayer to God in which they say HE created the heavens and the earth. But were they speaking of “God the Son”? Verse 30 makes clear that they were NOT. In fact it makes clear that even after Jesus had been raised, he is STILL God's “holy servant Jesus”.

My two-fold-Reply:

1. Mike offered Acts 4 where Peter prayed to the Father saying that He “made” the heavens and the earth. I have pointed out twice now that the Greek “poieo” means “appointed” in that passage. Peter said that the Father had “appointed” the heavens and the earth. But Jesus is the person who did the actual work in creation. Mike conceded this earlier. He said that my explanation “fits well with scripture.”

He said:

Quote

So God ordained what was to be created, and Jesus as the master craftsman did the “hands on” labor. That fits in nicely with scripture.

But now Mike is flip flopping.

2. The Greek does not say “servant” Jesus but “child” Jesus.

Mike:

Quote

Jack had listed John 1:3 as a supporting scripture to Heb 1:10 that everything was made “BY” Jesus. The Greek word “dia” in John 1:3 and elsewhere can mean “by” or “through”, so no NT scripture actually says all things were created “BY” Jesus

My two-fold reply:

1. Note that Mike said that the Greek dia in John 1:3 “can” mean through. Mike did not say that it necessarily means “through” in John 1:3.

2. It says also that without the Word “not one thing” came into being that has come into being. If Jesus came into being Himself, then it cannot true that “not one thing” came into being without Him. What will be Mike's “paraphrase conjecture” reply to this?

Mike:

Quote

Jack's “Father of Eternity” rendering of Isaiah 9:6 has been challenged by me. I have asked for support to his interpretation of it and he has provided words from a book he has. I cannot read his book in context, so he must show evidence from a linked source I can read in context. These are HIS rules from the “preamble” of this debate:

My reply:

Fair enough. I cannot find Barnes' Notes online. So the Complete Jewish Bible and Young's Literal translation” will suffice for now.

Complete Jewish Bible: “For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; dominion will rest on his shoulders, and he will be given the name Pele-Yo'etz El Gibbor Avi-'Ad Sar-Shalom [Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace],

Young's Literal Translation: For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

The name “Father of eternity” means that Christ is eternal.

Mike:

Quote

This is what NETBible says about “everlasting father”:
This title must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the “Son” is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the “Father.”) Rather, in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people. For a similar use of “father” see Isa 22:21 and Job 29:16. The use of “everlasting” might suggest the deity of the king (as the one who has total control over eternity), but Isaiah and his audience may have understood the term as royal hyperbole emphasizing the king’s long reign or enduring dynasty (for examples of such hyperbolic language used of the Davidic king, see 1 Kgs 1:31; Pss 21:4-6; 61:6-7; 72:5, 17).

My reply:

A number of proper names in the Old testament use the term “ab” in accordance with a custom usual in Hebrew and in Arabic, where he who possesses an attribute is called the “father” of it.

Thus “Abiethon” (2 Samuel 23:31), “father of strength,” means “strong”; “Abiaseph” (Exodus 6:24), “father of gathering,” means “gatherer”; “Abigail” (1 Chronicles 2:16), “father of exultation,” is a woman's name meaning “exulting”; and so forth.

Therefore, “Father of eternity” in Isaiah 9:6 means that Jesus is eternal. This is solidified in Hebrews 7 which says that Melchizedek (a manifestation of God in human form) had no beginning of days or end of life but was LIKE THE SON OF GOD!

The Net Bible is of no help to Mike for it still says that “everlasting” may suggest the deity o
f the king.

Mike:

Quote

Mr. Barnes also says: The Bible does not furnish any example of it. Yet, Wikipedia gives these examples:
Thus, the phrase “מלך מלכי המלכים” (“melekh maləkêi ha-məlâkhim”) does not refer to “a king, kings of kings”, but to “a king of unsurpassed kingship”; שיר השירים, (“shir ha-shirim”) does not refer to “a song of songs”, but to “a song that is the quintessential song”; ימים רבים (“yamim rabim”) refers to “a great sea” as easily as to “great [or 'many'] seas”.

Ezra 7:12 says,
1 “Artaxerxes, king of kings, to Ezra the priest, a scribe of the perfect law of the God of heaven:

My two-fold reply:

1. Mike is really stretching it. It says that the expression “a king of kings” indicates majesty. It says that the expression “song of songs” indicates a quintessential song. So by Mike's logic Genesis 1:26 should read thus:

And the God of Gods said, “Let US make man in OUR image.' “

Mike's source does NOT suggest that “elohim” by itself indicates majesty.

2. Excerpts from the TWOT:

Quote

“This word [elohim], which is generally viewed as the plural of eloah [Strong's #433], is found far more frequently in Scripture than either el or eloah for the true God. The plural ending is usually described as a plural of majesty and not intended as a true plural when used of God. This is seen in the fact that the noun elohim is consistently used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular. [4]”

But a better reason can be seen in Scripture itself where, in the very first chapter of Gen, the necessity of a term both conveying the unity of the one God and yet allowing for a plurality of persons is found (Gen 1:2, 26) This is further borne out by the fact that the form 'elohim occurs only in Hebrew and in no other Semitic language, not even in Biblical Aramic…” p. 44

The editors of the TWOT, all Hebrew scholars say that the Hebrew elohim is “usually described” as the plural of majesty. Note that they do not say that “elohim” actually represents the plural of majesty. They simply say that it is “usually described” as the plural of majesty. They go on to explain why the plural of majesty view is not preferable.

Mike:

Quote

And Deut 10:17 NET says,
For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, mighty, and awesome God who is unbiased and takes no bribe,

My reply:

BUT GENESIS 1:26 DOES NOT SAY “AND THE GOD OF GODS SAID….” IT SIMPLY SAYS, “AND GOD SAID….” SO BY MIKE'S OWN EXAMPLES OF THE PLURAL OF MAJESTY GENESIS 1:26 CANNOT BE AN EXAMPLE OF THE PLURAL OF MAJESTY. GEEZ!

Mike:

Quote

The point is that Dagon and Molech were SINGULAR beings. Why is Dagon referred to as “gods” when he is a SINGULAR “god”?

Reply:

I don't see the plural pronouns “US” and “WE” and “OUR” connected with the word “elohim” in reference to Dagon and Molech. So what's Mike's point?

I thought I had answered this. This is getting too burdensome again already. I am glad we are doing only ten rebuttals.

I said:

Quote

Ezekiel 12 explicitly says that the fulfillment of EVERY vision was “AT HAND” and would come to pass in “YOUR DAYS” (the days of Ezekiel's contemporaries). God said that His words shall “NO MORE BE PROLONGED” (Ezek. 12:21-28). The prophecies were to begin to come to pass in Ezekiel's own time.

Mike answered:

Quote

I agree that they would BEGIN to pass in Ezekiel's time.

My two-fold reply:

1. The prophecies were to be fulfilled during the time of Ezekiel's temple which was destroyed in ad70. The Herodian temple which Jesus cleansed was Ezekiel's rebuilt temple improved upon and destroyed by the Romans in ad70.

So how can the fulfillment be future?

2. The Prince himself (“David” 34:24; 37:25; 45:22) was to offer sacrifices for His own sins in the temple.

Ezekiel 37:25:

Quote

…and my servant David shall be their PRINCE for ever.

Ezekiel: 45:22 NIV:

Quote

22 On that day the PRINCE is to provide a bull as a sin offering FOR HIMSELF and for all the people of the land.

Okay folks. There it is! The Prince is to offer sacrifices FOR HIMSELF as well as for the people. What's Mike going to do now?

I am glad that Mike selected Ezekiel 34:24. Mike thinks that he has evidence against the divinity of Christ from that passage. But he certainly does not! It does not say “Messiah the Prince” does it?

Mike should have selected another passage from scripture which he thinks disproves Christ's divinity. Now he has to scurry around trying to recover himself from his implication that Christ will be required to offer sacrifices FOR HIS OWN SINS!

Mike:

Quote

Jack says it refers to the collective group of shepherds….

Reply:

The name “David” belonged to anyone from the family of David whom God appointed to rule over Israel. Solomon applied the promise of “David” as ruler over Israel to himself (2 Chronicles 6:1-6). The name “David” may refer to the whole family of David or a group of rulers from David. Notice that David “the prince” (singular) is also called “the princes” (plural) in 45:7-8:

Quote

7 ” 'The PRINCE will have the land bordering each side of the area formed by the sacred district and the property of the city. It will
extend westward from the west side and eastward from the east side, running lengthwise from the western to the eastern border parallel to one of the tribal portions. 8 This land will be his possession in Israel. And my PRINCES will no longer oppress my people but will allow the house of Israel to possess the land according to their tribes.

Mike:

Quote

Jack says it refers to the collective group of shepherds God would place over his people, but which of them ended up ruling “forever”?

My reply:

Mike should do his homework. The Hebrew “olam” literally means “to the [end of] the age” and quite often does NOT mean “forever.” God told Abraham that the ordinance of circumcision was to be observed “forever.” Yet the apostles abolished it (Acts 15). The Hebrew “olam” depending upon how it is used in a construction quite often refers to the end or consummation of an era. God never intended for circumcision to be observed for all eternity.

Mike:

Quote

Which of them ruled in righteousness?

Reply:

In 45:8 God said that His princes (plural) would rule rightly,

Quote

“And my princes will no longer oppress my people but will allow the house of Israel to possess the land according to their tribes”

There it is! It is a GROUP of princes that would rule rightly!

Summary of Ezekiel:

1. God said that the fulfillment of “EVERY VISION” was “at hand” and would “no more be prolonged” (ch. 12).

2. Ezekiel's prophecies were to be realized during the time of the rebuilt temple which was indeed rebuilt and later improved upon by Herod and was destroyed by the Romans in ad70.

So how can the fulfillment be future?.

3. God's servant David “the Prince” was to offer sacrifices FOR HIMSELF as well as for the people, 45:22. This is the FINAL death blow to Mike's assertion that “David” is Christ.

4. “David” in Ezekiel was a reference to the shepherds collectively whom God appointed to function as David when the people had no monarch. They were to replace the shepherds which God would remove (ch. 34:10) and God referred to them as “the prince” (singular) or “My princes” (plural).

[Mike is correct that David in Ezekiel cannot be God. But he is dead wrong in saying that David is Christ. Therefore, Mike has no evidence whatsoever agsainst the divinity of Christ in Ezekiel.

The book of Hebrews tells us that the Testator is God and Christ is the Testator (chs. 8-9). Therefore Christ is God.]

I asked two questions:

Quote

1. How can Jesus be the “father of eternity” if He was created or came into being?

2. Mike admits that Jesus is a “god.” Who is Jesus a god over?

First of Mike's two part reply:

Quote

1. EVEN IF Jesus is to be called father of eternity, which he's not, so what? Jesus is eternal NOW, for his God has made it so. Eternal doesn't necessarily mean both “from AND to” eternity. It also means only “TO eternity” as shown by the fact some of us will be made eternal even though we all had a beginning.

My reply:

I duplicate what I said above. I said:

Quote

A number of proper names in the Old testament use the term “ab” “in accordance with a custom usual in Hebrew and in Arabic, where he who possesses a thing is called the father of it.

Therefore, “Father of eternity” in Isaiah 9:6 means that Jesus is eternal.

Second part to Mike's reply:

Quote

2. Jesus is a god (mighty ruler) over everything that his God put him over. This doesn't include God himself,
1 Corinthians 15:27
For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ

And yet ANOTHER scripture that distinguishes between Jesus (who is NOT God) and God (who IS God).

My three-fold reply:

1. Please note Mike's polytheism. He says that Jesus is a “god” who is a “mighty ruler.” Are we supposed to serve this “god”? According to the ten commandments we are to serve no other gods but Jehovah.

2. Mike and I have been over 1 Corinthians 15 a million times. My answer has not changed at all. Jesus existed as God but on His own volition made Himself a servant (Philippians 2). So He again would humble Himself and yield HIS OWN kingdom to His Father.

Christ's power to yield HIS OWN PROPERTY on His own FREE volition necessarily infers that He is equal with His Father.

3. King David acknowledged that Messiah was God at the Father's right hand. “My Adonay (God) is at your right hand” (Ps. 110:5).

the Roo

July 13, 2010 at 8:03 pm#203577

JustAskin

Participant

It seems that MikeBoll64 and Kangaroo jack are the proverbial “Irresistible Force and Immoveable object” although which is which is another whole debate in itself.

Anybody with “Horn unlockers” or perhaps the guys at working on the “LHC” could get a look in here.
– Seems just like what they are trying to achieve – “When two Worlds collide”

KJ, aren't there two 'p's in Philippians? That must be a bit of a FILLIP to your accusation about my spelling…

July 13, 2010 at 10:31 pm#203615

Participant

Not to be a brute Just asking,
With the out most respect
stop posting until its over.
this is a debate,
and its a closed debate between two, and the judge,

you shouldnt be posting unless your posting as a moderator.
you can post freely once the debate is over.

its almost HALF way done.
Im just askin for your cooperation and respect.
Thank you,

[Judge]

July 13, 2010 at 10:39 pm#203618

Participant

Hi All,

The color coding needs to be corrected.
Please note before your rebuttals what each color will represent.
green= source
blue= oppenents source
red= cliam
etc. etc. etc.
again road maps or a “key” would help when stated at the beginning of a each rebuttal.

thank you,
[Judge]

July 13, 2010 at 11:44 pm#203636

JustAskin

Participant

SF,
Point taken – I didn't realise it was a debate. / Aren't debates usually titled: “Mikeboll vs xyz”
[moderator / JA]

p.s. It would look less intrusive if you didn't quote the erroneous post in the post stating that there was an erroneous post.
[Moderator]

July 14, 2010 at 1:56 am#203663

Participant

***
Ja,

haha dony worry about it.

**
good observation

**To add.
Debate threads do usualy have a name on it, but its on the subtitle part, i believe.
im sure this wont be the last debate between the two,
its better to have the subject first and than whom is debating.
[Judge]

July 14, 2010 at 2:02 am#203664

JustAskin

Participant

SF, don't forget to delete the post stating that you are going to delete the posts – plus the post stating that you should delete the post stating that you are going to delete the post…

I think this is called “Recursion”

July 14, 2010 at 4:20 am#203678

Blocked

Mike's 4th Rebuttal

My color code remains the same as I've been using on HN for months:
Blue is scripture
Green is for other sources, theirs or mine

Attack: I am still waiting for a scripture that actually says, “Jesus SPOKE all things into being”, or for Jack to admit there is none.

Attack: Jack can have his interpretation of Heb 1:8 – I'm tired of fighting over something that is proof of nothing. Like I said before, we know all things came FROM God THROUGH His Son. And we know that Jesus is a servant of his God who follows his God's commands and does everything to please his God. In Rev, 4 angels hold back winds of destruction WITH THEIR OWN HANDS at the command of their God. Does this mean they are God? No. So if God told Jesus to “build” the earth by doing this or that, and Jesus followed his God's commands, does that make him God? Also no.

Acts 4, on the other hand, is a different story. Of the 26 English translations listed here: http://www.biblestudytools.com/acts/4-24-compare.html, all have the word “made” or “created” – NOT APPOINTED. I challenge Jack to find one translation (and the LINK TO IT) that renders Acts 4:24 “appointed”.

It is a half-truth to say the Greek word “poieo” can mean “appoint”. Strong's actually says in one definition of “poieo”,
“to (make i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that“ Appoint has to be followed by what that person or thing was appointed TO. That is not the case in Acts 4:24. I cannot just say, “Jack, I appoint you” without you wondering WHAT YOU WERE APPOINTED TO.

Acts 4 has John and Peter praying through “your holy servant, Jesus”. Jack says:

Quote

The Greek does not say “servant” Jesus but “child” Jesus.

Online Bible Study Tools says about the Greek word “pais”,

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 3816
Original Word Word Origin
pai'ß perhaps from (3817)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Pais 5:636,759
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
paheece Noun

Definition
a child, boy or girl
infants, children
servant, slave
an attendant, servant, spec. a king's attendant, minister

King James Word Usage – Total: 24
servant 10, child 7, son (Christ) 2, son 1, manservant 1, maid 1, maiden 1, young man 1

KJV Verse Count
Matthew 8
Luke 9
John 1
Acts 6

Total 24

The word can mean “child” or “servant” depending on the situation. It never means “grown up” or “grown man” like Jesus was during his ministry and like we are told he is a “man” in heaven now.

The KJV word usage is interesting. Of the 7 times the word is rendered “child”, 5 of them refer to young children. Of the 3 times it is rendered “son”, 1 of those refers to a little boy. What we have left is 4 instances of the full grown man Jesus being called “son” or “child” after he was raised from the dead.

IMO, this was a blatant attempt by the trinitarian KJV translators to eliminate the 4 verses in the Bible that have the raised Jesus STILL being called a “servant” of God – in a time when hardly anyone had a translation of scripture in English, let alone a Greek dictionary or lexicon.

A handful of other translations have followed suit and translated similar to the KJV. But the vast majority of newer translations, including the NIV, CEV, NET, NASB, NLT, BBE, NRSV, AND EVEN THE NEWER VERSION OF THE KJV, THE NKJV render the word “pais” in these 4 verses as “servant”, NOT “child” or “son”, so I don't know what to make of Jack's insistence on the “child” translation.

That's enough already. We have slowly but surely made this debate about whether or not Jesus had a beginning or is eternal or “SPOKE all things into being” or whether all things came into being “by” him or whether he is still a servant of his God or whether God “appointed” or “made” the heavens and the earth, etc.

Jack has taken the approach that “JESUS IS GOD, THEREFORE THE PLURAL “ELOHIM” MUST MEAN “PLURAL GOD”. Approaching this with a preconceived notion tends to make one try to “fit” scripture into that notion. IMO, this practice will never produce honest and truthful fruit. And what's more, this debate is not about ANY of those things. I would love to debate Jack about whether or not Jesus is God in a moderated Q and A debate, but this one is about “plural God”.

These are the undisputable facts:

1. Historical evidence by way of the El Armana tablets PROVE that the peoples who were the predecessors of the Hebrews used a plural of grandiosities as early as 1500 B.C.

2. The Hebrew grammatical term for “plural” means “term of grandiosities”. In other words, to the Hebrews, when a word was pluralized, it meant one of two things:
a. There was “more than one” thing
b. The ONE thing was grandiose

3. Scriptural evidence proves this meaning because Nebuchadnezzar was called a “kings of kings”. So was Artaxerxes. These single people were not more than one person, nor were they multiple persons in a “kinghead”, so that leaves the only logical solution to be the plural of grandiosities. I have scripturally shown the plural of grandiosities to apply to the words God, Lord, king, slave, holy, and song.

4. Jack's own source admits that what grammarians call the plural of majesty is a real thing and reports, “Oriental princes, it is alleged, from the most ancient times, used the plural number in publishing their decrees; and such is the style of royalty to this day.“

5. And when asked why the singular gods Dagon and Molech were called by the plural “elohim”, he replied:

Quote

I don't see the plural pronouns “US” and “WE” and “OUR” connected with the word “elohim” in reference to Dagon and Molech. So what's Mike's point?

Is it then Jack's contention that Jehovah is only a “plural God” when plural pronouns are applied to Him? That would mean Jehovah was only a “plural God” in 4 verses in the whole Bible – and in each of the other thousands of mentions of Him, He was a singular God. But scripture says that God is immutable, so He can't be plural sometimes and singular others, can He?

Jack must explain this conundrum or come up with a more reasonable answer as to why the plural “elohim” was used of Dagon and Molech.

6. So all we're left with is “Let US make man in OUR image”. We know from scripture that Jesus is the exact representation, or image of his Father and God. We also know from scripture that Jesus was in the form, or image of his God before he emptied himself to become flesh. WHY IN THE WORLD COULDN'T GOD ALMIGHTY HAVE BEEN TALKING TO HIS SON WHO SHARED HIS IMAGE, BUT WASN'T HIMSELF GOD ALMIGHTY?

Jack is convinced that Ezekiel 34 and 37 are not about the promised messiah and Davidic King Jesus, although he has yet to show the scholarly support of his opinion that I asked for. Okay, let's try Jeremiah 30:9,

NET © But they will be subject (1) to the Lord their God and to the Davidic ruler whom I will raise up as king over them. (2)

The #1 note from above is,

The word “subject” in this verse and “subjugate” are from the same root word in Hebrew. A deliberate contrast is drawn between the two powers that they will serve.

The #2 note says,

The Davidic ruler which I will raise up as king over them refers to a descendant of David who would be raised up over a regathered and reunited Israel and Judah. He is called “David” in Hos 3:5, Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25 and referred to as a shoot or sprig of Jesse in Isa 11:1, 10 and a “righteous branch” springing from David (the Davidic line). He is called “David” because he is from the Davidic line and because David is the type of the ideal king whom the prophets looked forward to.

QUESTION: Jack, do you agree that Jer 30:9 is a prophecy about Jesus?

mike

July 15, 2010 at 8:51 pm#204063

http://www.christiancourier.com/article….ference

Participant

REBUTTAL# 5

Mike:

Quote

I am still waiting for a scripture that actually says, “Jesus SPOKE all things into being”, or for Jack to admit there is none.

My reply:

The law of necessary inference applies.

Quote

There are two kinds of inferences. “Reasonable” inferences suggest a likely possibility. For example, if one hears thunder and sees lightning, he may reasonably infer that it will rain shortly. And, based upon that inference, he may wish to take his umbrella when he leaves his house.

On the other hand, if an “inference” is characterized as “necessary,” this means that the conclusion drawn from the facts is irresistible. If there is snow covering the countryside in the morning, one may necessarily conclude that the temperature was below 32 degrees during the night.

Jesus was in the beginning with God AS THE WORD (vs. 1). The names of God and of Christ indicate their character and their actions. The Greek “logos” means “to speak.” So Jesus was in the begining with God speaking. All things came into being BY JESUS (vs. 3). So it is NECESSSARILY INFERRED that Jesus spoke all things into being.

Mike:

Quote

Jack can have his interpretation of Heb 1:8 – I'm tired of fighting over something that is proof of nothing. Like I said before, we know all things came FROM God THROUGH His Son.

My reply:

Mike claims that the Father is his God but contradicts Him. It was the Father who said that Jesus created the heavens and the earth with His OWN HANDS (Heb. 1:8-10).

Mike:

Quote

And we know that Jesus is a servant of his God who follows his God's commands and does everything to please his God.

My reply:

Jesus is no longer the servant of His Father. In His exalted status He is the fully investitured Son of God and as such He is distinguished from God's servants. This is CLEARLY taught in Hebrews 3. In that passage Moses is called a “servant” while Jesus by contradistinction is called a “Son.”

Quote

5And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

6But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. Heb. 3:6-7

Jesus is NOT a servant in His own House because He is the Son who built and owns the house.

Mike:

Quote

In Rev, 4 angels hold back winds of destruction WITH THEIR OWN HANDS at the command of their God. Does this mean they are God? No.

My two-fold reply:

1. When did God ever call an angel by the name “Son”?

2. John 1:1 LITERALLY says, “and God was the Word” and the Latin Vulgate (cited below) translates it as such. The English reading “and the Word was God” is paraphrase and the NWT's reading “a god” is in Mike's own terminology “paraphrase conjecture.” The Greek LITERALLY says that “and God was the Word” and that “all things came into being BY Him.” Period!

Mike:

Quote

Reply:

It does not matter for the word “made” in Acts 4 has nothing to do with creating. According to Strong's# 4160 the particular form of the word “poieo” is not about “making” in the sense of forming. It is about “making” in the sense of appointing.

Peter said that God “made” (poieo) Jesus both Lord and Christ. We know this means that God “appointed” Jesus as Lord and Christ. Yet I can't find a translation that says “appointed” in Acts 2:36. Does this necessarily infer that “poieo” in Acts 2:36 does not mean “appointed”?

So I don't need to provide a translation which says “to appoint.” Mike needs to realize that the word “made” even in English means many things and that he is just assuming his meaning in Acts 4.

Mike:

Quote

It is a half-truth to say the Greek word “poieo” can mean “appoint”. Strong's actually says in one definition of “poieo”,
“to (make i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that” Appoint has to be followed by what that person or thing was appointed TO. That is not the case in Acts 4:24. I cannot just say, “Jack, I appoint you” without you wondering WHAT YOU WERE APPOINTED TO.

My reply!

MY SINCERE THANKS TO MIKE! Strong's says nothing about “making” in the sense of forming.

Mike:

Quote

Appoint has to be followed by what that person or thing was appointed TO..

Reply:

Creation was appointed TO declare His handi-work! I answered this a couple of months ago. Geez!

Regarding Acts 4:26 I said

Quote

The Greek does not say “servant” Jesus but “child” Jesus.

Mike replied:

Quote

Mike totally misunderstands Peter's point. Jesus was made “under the law” and therefore His legal status in relation to His Father was one of “child.” By Hebrew law the child differed nothing from a servant. But when the child became a fully investiture
d son he was by law no longer the servant of his father. So when Jesus was exalted to the right hand of His Father He legally moved up from the status of child (servant) to the legal status of SON.

Again, Peter was not speaking about carnal things like “age” when he referred to Jesus as the “child Jesus.” Come on! Peter was referring to what the law constituted Jesus while He was under it. This is why it is so important to recognize why Peter used the word “child” instead of the usual word for servant (doulos). Jesus started out under the law which constituted Him as a “child” (servant). Upon His exaltation to His Father's right hand He legally became God's fully investitured Son. The fully investitured son was NO LONGER the servant of his father.

Hebrews says that Jesus is “Son” (not child) over His own house in opposition to Moses who was a servant in his house (see Hebrews 3:6-7 above).

Mike has no scriptural evidence that Jesus is still a servant under His Father. Jesus is NOW the fully investitured Son of God and as such He is “our only OWNER and Lord” (Jude 4 NWT). The fully investitured Son was the OWNER.

Mike:

Quote

Jack has taken the approach that “JESUS IS GOD, THEREFORE THE PLURAL “ELOHIM” MUST MEAN “PLURAL GOD”.

My two-fold reply:

1. I offered Mike scholarship which says that the Hebrew “elohim” allows for a plurality of persons (TWOT). And I have offered him scripture to back it up.

2. Now I am offering the Latin Vulgate which translates John 1:1 literally as it reads in the Greek, “And God was the Word”

Quote

The Latin Vulgate of Jerome in the 5th Century correctly translates John 1:1–2 into Latin:

1 in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum…

Word-for-word translation:
1 in (in) principio (beginning) erat (was) Verbum (Word) et (And) Verbum (Word) erat (was) apud (with) Deum (God) et (and) Deus (God) erat (was) Verbum (Word)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/jesus-the-creator

Mike:

Quote

4. Jack's own source admits that what grammarians call the plural of majesty is a real thing and reports, “Oriental princes, it is alleged, from the most ancient times, used the plural number in publishing their decrees; and such is the style of royalty to this day.”

My three-fold reply:

1. My source says that grammarians “usually describe” it as the plural of majesty. My source does not accept the plural of majesty theory. Barnes says that there are other grammarians who reject the plural of majesty theory.

2. Note the words in bold. My source says “it is alleged” that the plural of majesty was used by kings.

3. Mike made this a battle of source against source rather than “what saith the scripture.”

Mike:

Quote

My three-fold reply:

1. This is evasiveness on Mike's part. He is not really facing the use of the plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26. How many times must the plural pronpuns be used? The plural pronouns “US” and “OUR” and “WE” clearly indicate a plurality of persons in the divinity. Genesis 1:27 -28 refers to “man” (singular) and “them” (plural).

[Mike would certainly take the plural pronoun “them” literally in verse 27. But he wants to sweep the plural pronouns in reference to God under the rug.]

2. Colossians 1-2 mentions the “godhead” two times. The Greek “theotes” suggests a plurality in God.

3. In Genesis 19:24 we see TWO subjects which are called by the name “Jehovah.”

Quote

Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens, upon Sod´om and upon Go·mor´rah. NWT

The first subject called “Jehovah” who called down the fire is that person who appeared to Abraham in human form and conversed with him. The second subject who is also called “Jehovah” is the person who was “from” the heavens who sent down the fire in response to the call of the first subject called “Jehovah.” I believe the first subject called “Jehovah” was the Messenger of Jehovah. Exodus 23:20-25 CLEARLY says that the Messenger of Jehovah has Jehovah's name.

Mike:

Quote

Jack is convinced that Ezekiel 34 and 37 are not about the promised messiah and Davidic King Jesus, although he has yet to show the scholarly support of his opinion that I asked for.

Never mind my scriptural support right folks? Mike asks for a stone and I give him bread and he complains. I have said that I do not accept the futurist interpretation of Ezekiel.
Mike should research the subject Preterism (the view that ALL prophecy has been fulfilled).

Mike:

Quote

Okay, let's try Jeremiah 30:9,

My reply:

I will be glad to get into Jeremiah 30:9 AFTER Mike answers my point that the Davidic “Prince” of Ezekiel cannot be Christ because he will be required to offer sacrifices for his own sins.

“On that day THE PRINCE is to provide a bull as a sin offering FOR HIMSELF and for all the people of the land.” 45:22 NIV

Have you noticed that Mike did not touch this point with a ten foot pole?

Really, Mike would have had a better chance in proving his argument if he had chosen another passage.

Mike:

Quote

QUESTION: Jack, do you agree that Jer 30:9 is a prophecy about Jesus?

No! And I will be glad to talk about it AFTER you answer my point about the Davidic Prince being required to offer a sacrifice for his own sins Ez. 45:22.

Questions for Mike:

1. How can the Davidic Prince in Ezekiel be Christ when he is required to offer a sacrifice for his own sins?

2. Mike believes and I agree that Jesus now has a spiritual body. Ezekiel says that the D
avidic Prince shall eat bread in the temple:

Quote

1 Then He brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary which faces toward the east, but it was shut. 2 And the LORD said to me, “This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut. 3 As for THE PRINCE, because he is THE PRINCE, he may sit in it TO EAT BREAD before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gateway, and go out the same way.” 44:1-3

The Prince eats just like everyone else which means that he would need to visit the out house like everyone else. It does not appear to me that the Prince has a spiritual body.

What says Mike?

the Roo

July 16, 2010 at 4:34 am#204138

Blocked

Mike's 5th Rebuttal

Jack has not been able to provide a scripture that says Jesus “SPOKE all things into existence” because there isn't one. I had hoped he would just admit that…..but that hope has disappeared. Instead, he brings up “necessary inference”. Well then, let's infer. Jesus is God's Word. We can infer that to mean one of two things. Jesus is either the word THAT GOD SPOKE, or he is a spokesman FOR HIS GOD. If it is the former, words are SPOKEN, they do not themselves SPEAK. If it is the latter, then Jesus is a spokesman for his God. Many kings in the Bible sent spokesmen to various people. The words they spoke were to be considered as if the king himself was speaking them and were to be acted on accordingly. One famous occurrence of this was when Sennacherib sent spokesmen to scare Hezekiah and the rest of Jerusalem. Were Sennacherib's spokesmen actually King Sennacherib? Were they equal to King Sennacherib? No. If fact, this is what God said about the spokesmen in Isaiah 37:5-6,

5 When King Hezekiah's officials came to Isaiah, 6 Isaiah said to them, “Tell your master, 'This is what the LORD says: Do not be afraid of what you have heard—those words with which the underlings of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me.

A spokesman is just that…..someone who speaks the words of someone more powerful, that sent him to speak said words.

So which is it Jack? Was Jesus the word that GOD SPOKE, or was he GOD'S spokesman? But just to appease me, would you mind stating that there is NO SUCH SCRIPTURE that says what you've been claiming scripture says?

Jack said:

Quote

Jesus is no longer the servant of His Father.

First, that is NOT true as Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27 and 4:30 attest. Second, what does that have to do with him being a servant when the heavens and earth were created anyway?

Jack said:

Quote

Jesus is NOT a servant in His own House because He is the Son who built and owns the house.

I could easily refute your logic here with a simple story about a palace that Solomon built, but that is for another debate.

Jack said:

Quote

The English reading “and the Word was God” is paraphrase and the NWT's reading “a god” is in Mike's own terminology “paraphrase conjecture.” The Greek LITERALLY says that “and God was the Word” and that “all things came into being BY Him.” Period!

You mean all things came to be THROUGH him, don't you?

John 1:3 (New International Version)
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
And I'll address the NWT's correct translation of John 1:1 below.

Jack said:

Quote

Peter said that God “made” (poieo) Jesus both Lord and Christ.

Oh brother, here we go. “Made” has many meanings Jack. Appointed is one of them, and I agree that in the case of what Peter said above, the meaning is “appointed”. Why? Because it is followed by words describing what Jesus was appointed TO. John 2:15 says,

NET © So he made a whip of cords and drove them all out of the temple courts, with the sheep and the oxen. He scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

This is the same word “poieo” that John uses. But in this case, it means “formed” because it's clear from the context Jesus didn't “appoint” this whip AS anything or TO any position. He simply “formed” it out of cords. There is another abstract meaning when it is used like this: Jesus “made” the blind man well again.” This one means more along the lines of “caused him to be” well again.

Can one just “appoint” something without appointing it TO or AS something? If not, then Acts 4 is not talking about “appointing”, but about “forming”, for it doesn't mention the heavens and earth were appointed TO or AS anything – just “made”.

Jack said:

Quote

Creation was appointed TO declare His handi-work!

The word “to” that you use represents a reason they were “appointed”. We need an adjective or a noun that they were “appointed” AS or TO. There are none mentioned in Acts 4. In fact, there is no “reason” mentioned either. It just says God “made” the heavens and earth and everything in them.

Jack said:

Quote

MY SINCERE THANKS TO MIKE! Strong's says nothing about “making” in the sense of forming.

Yes he does.

1) to make 1a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.

It's his first definition. I didn't paste it because I was only interested in showing you that in order for the meaning of “appoint” to be applied, it must list what that thing was appointed TO or AS.

Jack said:

Quote

This is why it is so important to recognize why Peter used the word “child” instead of the usual word for servant (doulos). Jesus started out under the law which constituted Him as a “child” (servant). Upon His exaltation to His Father's right hand He legally became God's fully investitured Son. The fully investitured son was NO LONGER the servant of his father.

I think this “fully investitured son” is another conjecture paraphrase Jack uses a lot. Are these words actually in scripture somewhere?

Jack, can you explain why almost every newer translation uses the English word “servant” now?

Can you explain why the KJV changed it from “child” to “servant” in its newer translation?

Can you explain why, according to your reasoning above, Peter and John would STILL pray through the name of God's holy “child” Jesus after he was raised and apparently a “fully investitured son” at that time?

Jack said:

Quote

Mike has no scriptural evidence that Jesus is still a servant under His Father.

Actually, 4 scriptures – all listed above.

Jack said:

Quote

1. I offered Mike scholarship which says that the Hebrew “elohim” allows for a plurality of persons (TWOT). And I have offered him scripture to back it up.

If your “scholarship” allows for “elohim” to mean “plurality of persons”, then it must also allow for the plural “kings” applied to Nebuchadnezzar and Artaxerxes to mean “plurality of persons” in a “kinghead”. Not to mention a plurality of songs in a “song-head, slaves in a slave-head, holies in a holy-head and lords in a lord-head.

Please address the above blatant instances of the plural of grandiosities used in the scriptures, along with the fact that the actual Hebrew word for “plural” means “term of grandiosities”.

Btw, the only scriptures you offer are of God talking to His non-God Son, Jesus, and there is no reason to take those scriptures any other way – especially now that we BOTH have seen the proof that a plural of grandiosities was used many times in the Bible, and for more words than just “elohim”.

And I was also wondering about TWOT. What is it, and is it an admittedly trinitarian publication like Strong's and Vine's, or is it unbiased?

Jack said:

Quote

Now I am offering the Latin Vulgate which translates John 1:1 literally as it reads in the Greek, “And God was the Word”

Quote
The Latin Vulgate of Jerome in the 5th Century correctly translates John 1:1–2 into Latin:

1 in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum…

Word-for-word translation:
1 in (in) principio (beginning) erat (was) Verbum (Word) et (And) Verbum (Word) erat (was) apud (with) Deum (God) et (and) Deus (God) erat (was) Verbum (Word)

I can't answer why Jerome would have left out the 3 definite articles that are in the Greek, but John 1:1 actually says,

in beginning was the word and the word was with the god and god was the word

It's easy to see that John said the word was with THE God, and was god. The Koine Greek didn't use the indefinite article “a”. There are many other instances in the Bible where the English translations add the word “a” to make it understandable to us. One is where Jesus says Satan was “a” manslayer and “a” liar from the beginning. The Greek doesn't have the “a” before manslayer and liar, but all English translations include it. It is the same with John 1:1, but trinitarian translations would rather put “God” instead of “a god”, like John meant. And they don't even seem to care that it makes it say “God was WITH God”.

But all this is for another debate – this one is about “plural God”. And you can't prove it by saying “Jesus IS God, therefore plural God”. Especially since we know the predecessors of the Hebrews used a plural of grandiosities, and we know the Hebrews did in scripture. And we are also aware of the many times “el” and “eloah” are used instead of “elohim”. Why isn't God ALWAYS a “plural God”? Why is He sometimes singular in the scriptures?

Jack said:

Quote

1. My source says that grammarians “usually describe” it as the plural of majesty.

“Usually describe” WHAT as the plural of majesty? Oh, that's right…..the FACT that some cultures pluralize words that only apply to one person or thing to indicate they are grandiose or majestic.

Jack said:

Quote

2. Note the words in bold. My source says “it is alleged” that the plural of majesty was used by kings.

Note the OTHER words in bold from your source:

used the plural number in publishing their decrees; and such IS the style of royalty to this day.“

Face it Jack, it IS a real thing. It's just that your source wasn't aware of the El Armana tablets, and apparently he wasn't aware of the many scriptural uses of it NOT involving “elohim”. Hmmmm…….I thought this source was supposed to be some kind of a “Bible scholar” or something. Why else would you quote him? Yet he didn't know what I found out thanks to your Wikipedia post and a few hours of research?

PRAISE BE TO JAH, FOR CONTINUALLY LIGHTING MY PATH. AMEN.

Jack said:

Quote

3. Mike made this a battle of source against source rather than “what saith the scripture.”

I've listed 6 other occurrences of the plural of grandiosities FROM THE SCRIPTURES. Will you deal with those, or not?

Jack said,

Quote

I will be glad to get into Jeremiah 30:9 AFTER Mike answers my point that the Davidic “Prince” of Ezekiel cannot be Christ because he will be required to offer sacrifices for his own sins.

“On that day THE PRINCE is to provide a bull as a sin offering FOR HIMSELF and for all the people of the land.” 45:22 NIV

45:22 is talking of an earthly prince, the other verses I quoted talk of an anointed prince who will rule FOREVER. The whole point was to make a contrast between the way the rulers of Jerusalem HAD BEEN doing things and the way this future prince WILL do them.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has this footnote for Eze 34:24,
David… Christ, who is of the house of David. (Challoner)

Matthew Henry says:
Commentary on Ezekiel 34:17-31

The whole nation seemed to be the Lord's flock, yet they were very different characters; but he knew how to distinguish between them. By good pastures and deep waters, are meant the pure word of God and the dispensing of justice. The latter verses, 23-31, prophesy of Christ,…” http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=26&c=34

Wesley says:
Verse 24
[24] And I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them; I the LORD have spoken it.

My servant — Christ was in this great work his fathers servant, Isaiah 42:1.http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=wes&b=26&c=34

Adam Clarke says,
From this gloomy subject the prophet passes to the blessedness of the true Israel of God under the reign of DAVID, the Great Shepherd of the sheep, our Lord Jesus Christ http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkeeze34.htm

I wonder if this is the same Clarke you quoted? Anyway, just Google Ezekiel 34 and there is a large list of scholar's commentaries. I wonder if you can find one that agrees with you, Jack.

Anyway, you act as if when Isaiah pro
phesied about Jesus' in chapter 53, then he couldn't go back to talking about the current and near future events that would happen to Israel. But that's not how it works, Jack, for Isaiah most definitely did go back to talking about near future events after mentioning the Messiah. Almost all of the prophets spoke of Jesus' earthly and/or second coming intermixed with accounts of near future events.

Because Jack disagrees with me and every scholar known to man about Ezekiel 34:24, I asked him about Jeremiah 30:9, which also lists Jesus as someone OTHER than “Elohim”. I asked if he believed Jeremiah 30:9 is a prophecy about Jesus. He said:

Quote

No! And I will be glad to talk about it AFTER you answer my point about the Davidic Prince being required to offer a sacrifice for his own sins Ez. 45:22.

Okay. Your point has been answered above. Let's hear your thoughts on Jeremiah.

Jack said:

Quote

1. How can the Davidic Prince in Ezekiel be Christ when he is required to offer a sacrifice for his own sins?

Christ is referred to as “my servant David” and prophesied to be the good shepherd and prince FOREVER in the middle of some other near future prophesies. No other prince mentioned in Ezekiel is called “my servant David”.

Jack said:

Quote

2. Mike believes and I agree that Jesus now has a spiritual body. Ezekiel says that the Davidic Prince shall eat bread in the temple:

Matthew 26:29
I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.”

Are we to suppose Jesus can drink wine in his spiritual body, but not eat bread?

Points Jack has missed or ignored:

1. El Armana tablets

2. Plural of grandiosities – both that it's the definition of the Hebrew word for plural, and that I've shown it's use in scripture

3. Why the singular gods Dagon and Molech were called by the plural “elohim”

4. Why there are only 4 instances of plural pronouns used in the entire Bible in relation to “elohim” and the many other instances of “elohim” are accompanied by singular pronouns

5. Why God could not have been talking to someone other than “Himself” in those 4 instances – maybe His Son Jesus, since we know that Jesus was in the image of God and was a big part in God's creation

mike

July 19, 2010 at 5:22 pm#204995

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/eze37.pdf

Participant

REBUTTAL# 6:

Mike said:

Quote

Reply:

Okay, I have been patient with Mike long enough. I have asked him at least three times to explain what the Word was doing at the creation if not speaking. The name “the Word” means that Jesus was acting in creation in some way that was characteristic of His name. I have repeatedly asked Mike to explain what the Word was doing if not speaking and he won't answer. Now I will ask the judge by pm to require Mike to answer.

Question: What was the Word doing in the creation if not speaking? I have just now pmed my request to the judge asking him to require Mike to answer.

Mike:

Quote

Well then, let's infer. Jesus is God's Word. We can infer that to mean one of two things. Jesus is either the word THAT GOD SPOKE, or he is a spokesman FOR HIS GOD. If it is the former, words are SPOKEN, they do not themselves SPEAK. If it is the latter, then Jesus is a spokesman for his God. Many kings in the Bible sent spokesmen to various people. The words they spoke were to be considered as if the king himself was speaking them and were to be acted on accordingly. One famous occurrence of this was when Sennacherib sent spokesmen to scare Hezekiah and the rest of Jerusalem. Were Sennacherib's spokesmen actually King Sennacherib? Were they equal to King Sennacherib? No. If fact, this is what God said about the spokesmen in Isaiah 37:5-6,

A spokesman is just that…..someone who speaks the words of someone more powerful, that sent him to speak said words.

Reply:

This is not a direct answer to the question: Did Jesus speak the creation into being? Yes or no?

Mike:

Quote

So which is it Jack? Was Jesus the word that GOD SPOKE, or was he GOD'S spokesman?

Reply:

Mike's “either…or” scenarios are false. Jesus was HIMSELF the Word.

Mike:

Quote

But just to appease me, would you mind stating that there is NO SUCH SCRIPTURE that says what you've been claiming scripture says?

Reply:

Nope! Jesus was the Word by whom all things came into being (John 1:1-3).

Jack said:

Quote

Jesus is no longer the servant of His Father.

Mike replied:

Quote

First, that is NOT true as Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27 and 4:30 attest.

Reply:

The scriptures Mike offer do not assert that the glorified Jesus is the servant of His Father. The Greek word is “child.” Paul said that the heir differs nothing from a servant so long as he is a child (Gal. 4). Jesus was glorified to the full status of “Son.” According to Hebrews 3:5-6 Jesus is a Son in His own house while Moses was a servant in his house. So the word “Son” is opposite of the word “servant.” It goes on to say that we are the Son's house, that is, He owns us. The Owner is the Sovereign Master. Jude 4 says that Jesus is our “only DESPOTES and Lord.” The Greek “despotes” means “sovereign master.” Strong's# 1203 says that “despotes” means “ABSOLUTE RULER.”

Mike:

Quote

Second, what does that have to do with him being a servant when the heavens and earth were created anyway?

Reply:

Where does the scripture say that Jesus was a servant when the creation took place? Philippians 2 says that He existed in the form of God and made Himself nothing taking upon Himself the form of a servant. Therefore, Jesus was not a servant at the creation. He became a servant in His incarnation.

Mike:

Quote

You mean all things came to be THROUGH him, don't you?

Reply:

Nope! That's what Mike means.

Mike gave the NIV

Quote

John 1:3 (New International Version)
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Two-fold reply:

1. Inconclusive. All money in my household is generated through me. But I am the direct agent.

2. There is no other agent in creation mentioned in John 1:1-3 but the Word. Therefore, “dia” means that the Word was the direct agent in creation. The Father said that Jesus created the heavens and the earth with His own hands (Heb. 1:8-10). Mike himself has admitted that dia “can mean through.” He has also said that my view “fits well with scripture.” Then he flip-flopped on it.

Mike:

Quote

Oh brother, here we go. “Made” has many meanings Jack.

Reply:

Exactly! That's exactly what I said. Mike needs to go back and read what I said.

I said:

Quote

Mike needs to realize that the word “made” even in English means many things and that he is just assuming his meaning in Acts 4.

Mike just assumes his meaning in Acts 4.

Mike:

Quote

Appointed is one of them, and I agree that in the case of what Peter said above, the meaning is “appointed”. Why? Because it is followed by words describing what Jesus was appointed TO.

Good! We know also that the creation was appointed TO declare His praise. This is repeatedly said in the Psalms. Peter did not need to
explicitly say it.

Mike:

Quote

John 2:15 says,

NET © So he made a whip of cords and drove them all out of the temple courts, with the sheep and the oxen. He scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

Reply:

In this instance Strong's meaning “to band together” should be applied. Strong does not say that “poieo” means “to create.” The word “poieo” does not mean “to create.”

Mike:

Quote

There is another abstract meaning when it is used like this: Jesus “made” the blind man well again.”

Reply:

Again, the word “poieo” does not mean “to create.”

Mike:

Quote

Reply:

It was already known to the Jews that all creation was appointed TO declare His praise. Peter did not need to say it in Mike's wording. In fact, Hebrews 1 says that the Father appointed (poieo) the worlds because of the Son. So we are not bound to Mike's “appointed TO” formula. The scripture says that the worlds were appointed “because….”

Mike:

Quote

Reply:

Sheer nonsense! Mike is saying that because Peter did not state the reason for the appointment of creation then there was no reason. Again, Hebrews 1 says that the Father appointed (poieo) the worlds because of the Son. Verse 10 says that Jesus did the actual work of creating the heavens and the earth. If the Father was Mike's God as he claims, then he would not argue with the Father.

I said:

Quote

MY SINCERE THANKS TO MIKE! Strong's says nothing about “making” in the sense of forming.

Mike replied:

Quote

Yes he does.

1) to make 1a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.

It's his first definition.

Reply:

No Strong does not! None of the defintions for “poieo” Mike gives are found in Strong's Concordance. Here is what Strong's# 4160 actually says:

Quote

to make or do (in a very wide application, more or less direct); , abide, + agree, appoint, x avenge, + band together, be, bear, + bewray, bring forth, cast out, cause, commit, + content, continue, deal, + without any delay, (would) do (-ing), execute, exercise, fulfill, gain, give, have, hold, x journeying, keep, + lay wait + lighten the ship, make, x mean, + none of these things move me, observe, ordain, perform, provide, + have, purged, purpose, put, + raising up x secure, shew, x shoot out, spend, take, tarry, + transgress the law, work yield. Comp. 4238

Two observations:

1. Strong begins by saying that “poieo” has a “wide variety” of applications. Then he lists the various meanings of the word. The words Mike imputes to Strong do not appear in Strong's list of definitions!

2. Strong ends saying to compare with 4238. None of Mike's definitions are found in 4238 either.

The words Mike gives as definitions “to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc” are no where found in Strong's 4160 and 4238! Where does Mike get this stuff?

I said:

Quote

Mike replied:

Quote

I think this “fully investitured son” is another conjecture paraphrase Jack uses a lot. Are these words actually in scripture somewhere?

Reply:

Paul explicitly made reference to the law which regarded a child as a servant UNTIL the appointed time of the father. Then he said that Christ “came to be under the law.” So Christ came to be under the law which regarded the child as a servant UNTIL the appointed time of the father.

Quote

Jack, can you explain why almost every newer translation uses the English word “servant” now?

Reply:

The Greek literally says “child.” Strong's# 3816 says simply that it means “a boy.” According to Paul the child differed nothing from a servant though he was owner of all. But at the appointed time of the father the child became a son and no longer a servant (Gal. 4). Jesus came to be under that law which regarded the child as a servant UNTIL the appointed time of the father.

Mike:

Quote

Can you explain why the KJV changed it from “child” to “servant” in its newer translation?

Reply:

The child was a servant as I have said. But He was the heir unlike the servant. And he differed nothing from a servant UNTIL the appointed time of the father (Gal. 4) The whole idea is that Jesus was the CHILD-SERVANT of God. But now He is the fully investitured Son. Back to Hebrews 3. Jesus is “Son” over His house while Moses was just a servant. Therefore, the Son is not a servant. Mike assumes that the translators mean the sa
me thing he means by terms.

“pais” = child servant (family member, becomes a fully investitured son).

“doulos” = servant (non family member and no son)

Mike:

Quote

Reply:

Because it was the name of the historical Jesus that was the basis and grounds of all benefits.

Mike:

Quote

Reply:

Why?

Mike:

Quote

Please address the above blatant instances of the plural of grandiosities used in the scriptures, along with the fact that the actual Hebrew word for “plural” means “term of grandiosities”.

Reply:

I have addressed this already and my answer has not changed. Mike's source says that the expression “King of kings” means grandiosities and the expression “Song of songs” means quintessential. So by Mike's own source Genesis 1:26 should read, “And the God of gods said…” for it to mean the plural of majesty. Please note that Mike's source did not give Genesis 1:26 as an example of grandiosities and quintessence.

Mike:

Quote

Evasive! The Greek literally says, “And God was the Word.” Mike did not address this specifically. He avoided it like the plague!

Mike:

Quote

But all this is for another debate – this one is about “plural God”. And you can't prove it by saying “Jesus IS God, therefore plural God”.

Evasive! It is for this debate. If the Word that was with THE God and was also Himself THE God, then THE God is a plural being. Both the Father and the Exalted Son are called “THE God” in Hebrews 1:8-10. Oooh, I hope Mike says that Jesus is “THE God” in the “same sense” as satan.

Mike:

Quote

I think we have been over this enough. Our exchange from the standpoint of sources is a wash out for there are grammarians on both sides off the issue. Let's move on to scripture alone now.

Mike:

Quote

Reply:

I have addressed this already and my answer has not changed. Mike's source says that the expression “King of kings” means grandiosities and the expression “Song of songs” means quintessential. So by the standard of Mike's own source Genesis 1:26 should read, “And the God of Gods said…” for it to mean the plural of majesty. Please note that Mike's source did not give Genesis 1:26 as an example of grandiosities and quintessence.

Mike:

Quote

Note the OTHER words in bold from your source:

used the plural number in publishing their decrees; and such IS the style of royalty to this day.”

Reply:

Mike did not give the full statement. It says

Quote

“Oriental princes, it is alleged, from the most ancient times, used the plural number in publishing their decrees; and such is the style of royalty to this day.”

My source says that “it is alleged” that Oriental princes used the plural number and use it to this day. My source then gives the reason why this explanation is not preferable.

Mike:

Quote

45:22 is talking of an earthly prince, the other verses I quoted talk of an anointed prince who will rule FOREVER.

Five-fold reply:

1. I have already refuted Mike's treatment of the Hebrew “olam.” The same word is used of the ordinance of circumcision. Yet we know that God never intended for circumcision to continue forever. It simply means “perpetually without interruption until an appointed end.”

2. Then there is the problem that Mike believes that the reign of Jesus will cease after he “gives back” the kingdom to the Father. How can Christ reign “forever” if He ceases to reign affer giving back the kingdom to the Father?

3. The Prince is called “David” in 34:24 which Mike says is Christ. Yet 45:22 says that the Prince shall offer sacrifices for his own sins. Therefore, Mike has implied that Christ will be required to offer sacrifices for His own sins.

4. Ezekiel chapter 12 explicitly and undisputably says that every vision would be fulfilled in the days of Ezekiel's contemporaries

Quote

21And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

22Son of man, what is that proverb that ye have in the land of Israel, saying, The days are prolonged, and every vision faileth?

23Tell them therefore, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will make this proverb to cease, and they shall no more use it as a proverb in Israel; but say unto them, The days are at hand, and the fulfillment of every vision.

24For there shall be no more any vain vision nor flattering divination within the house of Israel.

25For I am the LORD: I will speak, and the word that I shall speak shall come to pass; it shall be no more prolonged: for in your days, O rebellious house, will I say the word, and will perform it, saith the Lord GOD.

26Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying.

27Son of man, behold, they of the house of Israel say, The vision that he seeth is for many days to come, and he prophesieth of the times that are far off.

28Therefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; There shall none of my words be prolonged any more, but the word which I have spoken shall be done, saith the Lord GOD.

a. The days are “at hand”, and the fulfillment of “every” vision.

b. …it shall be no more prolonged: for in your days, O rebellious house, will I say the word, and will perform it

c. …but the word which I have spoken “shall be done”, saith the Lord GOD.

5. David was to begin to be Prince starting with THEM (Ezekiel's contemporaries), their children and their children's children (Ezek 37):

Quote

24And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

25And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

a. It unambiguously says that David will be the Prince over them (Ezekiel's contemporaries), their children, and their children's children.

b. It says that they shall dwell in the land “forever” (another example that the Hebrew “olam” does not mean what Mike thinks).

Mike has inferred that Jesus will be required to offer sacrifices for His own sins.

Mike cites a list of futurist commentary. Then he says:

Quote

Anyway, just Google Ezekiel 34 and there is a large list of scholar's commentaries.

Reply:

I reject ALL futurist commentary!

I am aware of the futurist commentaries. I reject them ALL just as Mike rejects ALL trinitarian commentary. Mike cannot expect me to accept futurist commentary any more than I can expect him to accept trinitarian commentary. This debate is about each of us defending our own personal beliefs from scripture.

And by the way, there are many who believe that “David” in Ezekiel is the resurrected patriarch.

Have you all noticed how Mike has become so dependent upon the doctrines of men? He has become a lot more dependent upon the doctrines of men than he was at the beginning. This is because he is losing his arguments on the scripture front. The doctrines of men are totally contrary to the philosophy of Heaven Net.

Quote

The site contains content resulting from a thirst and passion for truth, so some of the content may seem controversial to some religiously bound people. The idea is to do God's will and shun all man-made tradition which is founded in the fear of man. This site is simply about sharing what God has put in our hearts and minds and putting those same things into the hearts and minds of others. There is no problem testing all doctrines, (even so-called sacred ones).

https://heavennet.net/

Mike:

Quote

Circular! Mike assumes that the expression “My Servant David” is Christ and then says that no other prince is called “My Servant David.”

But 37:25 unmistakeably says that David shall be the king over “THEM” (Ezekiel's contemporaries) and THEIR children, and THEIR children's children.

Quote

24And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

25And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, EVEN THEY, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be THEIR prince for ever.

It clearly says that “EVEN THEY” (Ezekiel's contemporaries) shall dwell in the land and that David shall be “THEIR” Prince as well as the prince of “THEIR” children and “THEIR” children's children.

THEREFORE, THE NAME “DAVID” IS A REFERENCE TO THE COLLECTIVE PRINCES WHO WERE OF THE DAVIDIC LINE EACH IN HIS OWN SUCCESSIVE ORDER. THUS YOU HAVE THE “FOREVER” STATEMENT.

THE WORD “FOREVER” LITERALLY MEANS “TO THE AGE”, THAT IS, TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE AGE. THAT AGE ENDED BEFORE CHRIST APPEARED IN THE FLESH!

See the link for the Hebrew Interlinear on “olam”. It means “for [the] aeon” (age).

I said:

Quote

2. Mike believes and I agree that Jesus now has a spiritual body. Ezekiel says that the Davidic Prince shall eat bread in the temple:

Mike replied:

Quote

Matthew 26:29
I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.”

Jesus did eat the bread and wine again with His disciples in the kingdom after He arose from the dead. That's when the kingdom of God was inaugurated. He was still in His physical body. He had not assumed His spiritual body until He ascended into heaven. The spiritual body does not eat. This w
ould require that there be toilets in heaven. Will there be toilets in heaven?

Mike:

Quote

Are we to suppose Jesus can drink wine in his spiritual body, but not eat bread?

It was in His resurrected body that He ate and drank with them again. He had not assumed His spiritual body until He went to heaven.

Mike:

Quote

1. El Armana tablets

2. Plural of grandiosities – both that it's the definition of the Hebrew word for plural, and that I've shown it's use in scripture

3. Why the singular gods Dagon and Molech were called by the plural “elohim”

4. Why there are only 4 instances of plural pronouns used in the entire Bible in relation to “elohim” and the many other instances of “elohim” are accompanied by singular pronouns

Point 1: I answered before and again in this post. The tablets would require that Genesis 1:26 read “And the God of gods said…” for it to be the plural of majesty. The narrative does not say this.

Point 2: I answered already.

Point 3. I answered already

Point 4: Four instances of the plural pronouns are enough for me. Mike did not explain why he would take the plural pronouns figuratively in verse 26 but literally in verse 27.

Point 5: I have never said that God was talking “to Himself.” I said that Jesus was the God who was speaking to the Father. Mike's statement that Christ merely had a “big part” in creation is a redaction of the new testament testimony. The Father Himself said that the heavens and the earth are the work of Christ's OWN HANDS.

QUESTIONS:

1. Mike did not reply to my point that Genesis 19:24 refers to two subjects by the name “Jehovah.” It says, “And Jehovah rained down fire from Jehovah from the heavens.” This is clearly a reference to two subjects.

2. Mike has yet to deal with the time statements in Ezekiel 12. He just made a passing comment that Ezekiel's prophecies were to “begin” to be fulfilled with Ezekiel. But the text clearly says that the fulfillment of EVERY vision was “AT HAND” and “IN YOUR DAYS.” Therefore, “David” in Ezekiel cannot be Christ and Mike has no argument against the divinity of our Lord from Ezekiel.

3. Mike never dealt with Ezekiel 37 which says that David will be Prince “TO THEM” (Ezekiel's contemporaries) and “THEIR” children, and “THEIR” children's children. Since “David” began to reign over Ezekiel's contemporaries and continued to reign over THEIR children and grandchildren, it is necessarily inferred that “David” is a succession of princes and not just one man. God refers to them as “My Princes” (plural) in 45:8.

4. Mike has not dug himself out of the hole he dug. He has implied that Christ will be required to offer sacrifices FOR HIS OWN SINS. Seeing that Mike believes that Jesus is “THE God” in the “same sense” as satan this should not be a problem to him.

the Roo

July 20, 2010 at 10:29 am#205099

Participant

Hi All,
1. Kj wants Mike to answer this Question
Question: What was the Word doing in the creation if not speaking? I have just now pmed my request to the judge asking him to require Mike to answer.

As i said before, i cannot force anyone to answer a question! i can suggest that Mike should probably give an alternative to what Jesus was doing. If he doesnt, you can use that against him in your closeing arguements.

2. Suggestion for debators.
Both of you need to record the claims that you feel have not been refutted so that ya can state in your closing statements that these cliams have not been refuted so therefore are held valid.

You do not have to tell the oppenent before your closing statements what he NEEDS to attack. it would be polite if you do, but its not nessary. If he decided not to attack nor defend a point, than thats more of an advantage for the oppenent. and one less of an arguement.

Again this is just a suggestion to record them because it would help you in your closing statements! and giving a summary about them.

[Judge]

July 20, 2010 at 12:56 pm#205125

theodorej

Participant

Greetings KJ…..Phew!!! That was indeed a lengthy post,begging an answer to a question which is fairly simple….Jesus was doing nothing during creation simply because the personage of Jesus(The word made flesh)had not yet manefested as part of Gods plan…Let us not forget that Gods ways are higher than ours…in the venacular..”He forgot every thing we think we know”Our knowledge is foolishness to him…The eternal created by merely saying “Let there Be light”and by virtue of his Word there was light and through the power of his spirit it was good..(eg. It Happened )

July 21, 2010 at 3:17 am#205257

Blocked

MIKE'S REBUTTAL #6

Jack can't bring himself to admit there is no scripture that says Jesus spoke all things into being. He can't admit that it is just another or his “conjecture paraphrases” like “fully investitured son”. So, just take it from me……there isn't one.

Although I don't believe this was one of his “one per post” questions that I MUST answer, he seems determined that I answer this. He said:

Quote

Question: What was the Word doing in the creation if not speaking? I have just now pmed my request to the judge asking him to require Mike to answer.

The Word of God was being spoken BY GOD. Words themselves do not speak Jack. Words are spoken. Actually, it means he was God's “spokesman”, but you don't like that truth, so you will have to suffice with this other answer.

Jack said:

Quote

This is not a direct answer to the question: Did Jesus speak the creation into being? Yes or no?

Show me the scripture that explicitly says he did, and I'll answer it for you again.

Jack said:

Quote

Mike's “either…or” scenarios are false. Jesus was HIMSELF the Word.

Yes. The Word OF GOD who was WITH GOD. Either one of those two phrases should be enough for you to realize that the Word was a different entity than the God he was OF and WITH.

Jack said:

Quote

The scriptures Mike offer do not assert that the glorified Jesus is the servant of His Father.

Yes, they do. And I've shown about 10 of the most used translations today that render it “servant”. Including the NKJV, which has changed the old KJV's translation of “child” to “servant” now.

Jack said:

Quote

It was already known to the Jews that all creation was appointed TO declare His praise. Peter did not need to say it in Mike's wording. In fact, Hebrews 1 says that the Father appointed (poieo) the worlds because of the Son. So we are not bound to Mike's “appointed TO” formula. The scripture says that the worlds were appointed “because….”

Which verse of Heb 1 says what you claim about the Father appointing the worlds because of the Son? 1:1-2 says,
1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

All of those bolded “he’s” represent God. WHO made the universe? THROUGH whom did He do it?

And there's that word “appointed” again. But look! It works here because it tell what Jesus was appointed TO or AS. You say you're not bound to “my” formula? Can you just appoint someone or something? Don't they have to be appointed TO or AS something? Your example of the heavens being appointed “to” declare God's greatness is like me saying, “I appointed Jack TO show that I'm fair.” I gave the reason that I appointed you, but I'm sure we're all still wondering WHAT I appointed you TO or AS, right?

Jack said:

Quote

No Strong does not! None of the defintions
for “poieo” Mike gives are found in Strong's Concordance. Here is what Strong's# 4160 actually says:

This is where I quoted the Strong's from. Hold your curser over #4160 in the KJV version. You'll see I pasted the very first definition.
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Act&chapter=4&verse=24

poieo 1) to make 1a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.

Here's another source which utilizes Strong along with others:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/poieo.html
And it says of “poieo”

Definition
to make
with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.

I only pasted the first two definitions out of many. I think you might owe me an apology. You do know there are different versions of Strong's, right? They don't always match exactly.

Jack said:

Quote

The words Mike gives as definitions “to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc” are no where found in Strong's 4160 and 4238! Where does Mike get this stuff?

Now you know!

I said:

Quote

I think this “fully investitured son” is another conjecture paraphrase Jack uses a lot. Are these words actually in scripture somewhere?

Jack said:

Quote

Paul explicitly made reference to the law which regarded a child as a servant UNTIL the appointed time of the father. Then he said that Christ “came to be under the law.” So Christ came to be under the law which regarded the child as a servant UNTIL the appointed time of the father.

I'll take that as a “Yes, it is another one of my conjecture paraphrases” and a “No, it can't actually be found in scripture, just like Jesus speaking all things into being”.

Jack said:

Quote

The whole idea is that Jesus was the CHILD-SERVANT of God.

So Jesus as a 30 year old man was a “child” servant of God? Why do you mix the words “child” and “servant”? According to this source…..
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Act&chapter=4&verse=27
…..it means,
pais 1) a child, boy or girl 1a) infants, children 2) servant, slave 2a) an attendant, servant, spec. a king's attendant, minister

It doesn't ever seem to apply to 30 year old people though.

I said:

Quote

Jack said:

Quote

Because it was the name of the historical Jesus that was the basis and grounds of all benefits.

I was told I couldn't use the “smilies” anymore in this debate, but trust me; I'm laughing on the inside. Using the word “child” for the adult Jesus brings up memories of Will Ferrell in that “Talladega Nights” movie where he prefers to pray to the “little baby Jesus in the manger”.

So Jack, are you seriously asserting that Peter and John were praying to God through the name of the “child” Jesus? Was it the 5 year old Jesus? How about the 13 year old Jesus? Because any older than that, and the word could not be rendered “child” anymore, making it HAVE to mean “servant”, just like almost every newer translation renders it. Do you see that from the definition? The word “pais” doesn't ever mean “adult” person. So just how old do you think the Jesus that they were praying through was?

You keep bringing up Galatians 4. That passage is actually about us receiving our rights as sons of God. It doesn't say anything about Jesus being a “child-servant” at all that I can see. But even if it did, Peter and John knew that Jesus had been raised to his “fully investitured son” status by the time they made that prayer. Why would they STILL be praying through the “child” Jesus?

Jack said about my understanding of John 1:1,

Quote

Evasive! The Greek literally says, “And God was the Word.” Mike did not address this specifically. He avoided it like the plague!

I actually thought I made it pretty clear when I said:

Quote

But to further explain, here is the way the Greek is laid out:
in beginning was the word and the word was with the god and god was the word

because liar he is and the father of it

You can see that the way they are laid out is almost identical. The adjectives that describe the noun (man killer and liar) precede the verbs (was and is) and the indefinite article “a” is missing. It's the same with John 1:1. The adjective (god) precedes the verb (was) and the indefinite article “a” is missing. What do the English translations all do in John 8:44? They switch around the noun, adjective and verb and add the “implied” indefinite article “a” and come up with “That one was a manslayer from the beginning” and “he is a liar and the father of lies”. If they handled John 1:1 the exact same way, it would read just like the NWT renders it,
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

So, the question before us is why are there only a handful of translations that render John 1:1 as it should be rendered, when every English translation renders John 8:44 as it should be? Why wouldn't they apply the same rules of Greek grammar to both verses? There’s something to think about.

Okay, I finally muddled through all the non-topical stuff; now for the topic this debate is supposed to be about.

Jack said:

Quote

I have addressed this already and my answer has not changed. Mike's source says that the expression “King of kings” means grandiosities and the expression “Song of songs” means quintessential. So by Mike's own source Genesis 1:26 should read, “And the God of gods said…” for it to mean the plural of majesty. Please note that Mike's source did not give Genesis 1:26 as an example of grandiosities and quintessence.

I think Jack is missing a vital piece of info here. The Hebrew does NOT say “King of kings”. Nebuchadnezzar is called the “kingS of kings”. Do you see that? The first word is also plural. Artaxerxes is called the KINGS………of kings. Canaan is called the SLAVES………of slaves. Solomon's ONE song is called the SONGS……… of songs. Does it mean these singular things are “multiples of something” within themselves? Was Nebuchadnezzar “multiple persons in a king-head” because the plural “kingS” was used of him? Or could it just mean that he was being called the “grandiose king”? In English, we would have a different way of implying that Nebuchadnezzar was more “mighty” or “majestic” or “grandiose” than the other kings. We would use capital letters and say he was the King of kings, like we do for Jesus. The Hebrews didn't distinguish between capital and small letters, so their way of indicating that Nebuchadnezzar was “mighty” or “majestic” or “grandiose” was to pluralize the word “king”. To them, that meant the same thing as capitalizing it does to us.

Don't forget that the Hebrew word for “plural” actually means “term of grandiosities”. What do you think?

Jack disagrees with me and every scholar known to man about Ezekiel prophesying about Jesus. I won't debate it with him any farther, for we obviously disagree.

Jack said:

Quote

I am aware of the futurist commentaries. I reject them ALL just as Mike rejects ALL trinitarian commentary. Mike cannot expect me to accept futurist commentary any more than I can expect him to accept trinitarian commentary. This debate is about each of us defending our own personal beliefs from scripture.

I don't think you can hide behind “prete
rist” for this, can you? Do you “preterists” believe that all OT prophecies about Christ were fulfilled during OT times?

But anyway, I've offered Jer 30:9 as another example of Jesus being referred to as someone other that “Elohim”.

But Jack says he doesn't believe Jer 30:9 is a prophecy about Jesus either…..why?

Jack said about the El Armana tablets:

Quote

I answered before and again in this post. The tablets would require that Genesis 1:26 read “And the God of gods said…” for it to be the plural of majesty. The narrative does not say this.

I am glad that Jack has accepted there is such a thing as a “plural of majesty”, as his response indicates. The plural Hebrew word for “sea” can mean more than one sea, or a great sea. The same is true for the word “tree”, and just about any other Hebrew word. It isn’t the “of seas” part that makes it a plural of grandiosities; it’s the fact that the first word is pluralized even though it represents a singular person or thing.

Anyway, it seems he has come to grips with the fact the plural of majesty exists, and that's half the battle.

We have been debating “Who created all things”, “What the Word really means”, “The definition of the Greek word “poieo”,
“Is Jesus a servant or a child”, “The true rendering of John 1:1”, and many other topics that I would love to debate Jack about at some time. But somehow, while debating all these other things, we have lost sight of the fact that this debate is supposed to be about “Plural God”.

I submit that Jack cannot try to prove the word “Elohim” describes a plural God BECAUSE Jesus is God. His stand all along has been, “Jesus IS God, therefore the use of the plural word “elohim” must indicate a plural God.

I further submit that he must instead try to prove that the use of the plural word “elohim” would mean “a plurality of persons in a godhead” whether those “persons” included Jesus or not.

In other words, he should be trying to prove it without ever bringing up his belief that Jesus is God. Otherwise, the debate becomes about whether or not Jesus is God, not about the word “elohim” having a definition of “plurality of persons in a godhead”.

This last part is what we are supposed to be debating here.

I have shown this evidence and logic:

1. The Hebrew word for “plural” means “term of grandiosities”.

2. I have shown that this “term of grandiosities” has been applied in scripture to the word king, slave, holy, lord, and song, as well as god. And in each case, the use of the plural form of those words still represents a SINGULAR person or thing.

3. I have shown that the plural “elohim” is also used of the gods Dagon and Molech, both of whom are SINGULAR gods.

4. I have shown that the plural word “elohim” is accompanied by SINGULAR pronouns all but 4 times in the scripture. In other words, God only says “us” or “we” 4 times in the whole of scripture. All other times, He says “I” and “my”, etc. And the writers of scripture NEVER say “they” or “them” referring to God.

5. I have shown that “elohim” means either “a grandiose god” or “gods”. The plural form NEVER means “a plurality of persons in a godhead” anymore than “kings” meant that Nebuchadnezzar was a “plurality of persons in a kinghead”. Again, the plural “elohim” means only one of two things: “ONE GRANDIOSE GOD”, or “MORE THAN ONE GOD”. So for Jack to deny it means “one grandiose God” is for him to assert that it means “more than one God”. Those are the only two choices the Hebrew language and grammar will allow.

6. As if the uses of the plural of gandiosities in actual scripture were not enough, I have also shown archeaological evidence by way of the El Armana tablets that the predecessors of the Hebrews also used the plural of grandiosities.

7. I have shown that because we know that Jesus helped with the creation and that he also shared the image of his God, like us, it is very reasonable that God was talking to his Son and co-creator when he said the “us” and “our” in Genesis. But there is nothing about that conversation, or anything in scripture, that would imply Jesus had to be part of God for God to talk to him.

Okay, that's it. I will discuss these 7 things or anything Jack has to refute them. I will NOT be discussing whether or not Jesus is God anymore, because that is not what the title of this debate is.

So far, Jack's ONLY stand is:

1. Jesus IS God, so “elohim” must somehow mean “plurality of persons in a godhead”. Well Jack, you will NEVER be able to prove your first claim because it is a man-made lie, so you can't use it as the foundation to prove your second claim.

Do you hear that Jack? You need not bother addressing any of the points in this post except the last seven.

If you can not refute these seven last points WITHOUT using your “God is a trinity, therefore elohim means plural God” logic, then consider these last seven points my conclusion.

You CANNOT presume to prove point B using only your point A as evidence if your point A has not been established as UNDENIABLE FACT.

peace and love,
mike

July 21, 2010 at 7:09 am#205270

Participant

Quote (theodorej @ July 20 2010,17:56)

THEODORE

THIS THIS IS A DEBATE THREAD!! ONLY RESERVED FOR KJ AND MIKE WHO ARE DEBATING AND THE JUDGE (ME)

PLEASE STOP POSTING IN THIS THREAD!

YOUR INTEREFERING IN THIS DEBATE,

PLEASE RE-READ THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD,
AND IT STATES FOR NO ONE TO POST IN THIS THREAD UNTIL THE DEBATE IS OVER!

PLEASE EDIT OR DELETE YOUR COMMENT.

THANKYOU,

[JUDGE]

July 22, 2010 at 12:57 am#205364

Blocked

Whoa there Dennison!

I think it was an honest mistake that Theodore made, you don't have to YELL!

peace and love,
mike

July 23, 2010 at 8:11 pm#205661

http://endtimesmadness.com/EzekielsMagog.html

Participant

REBUTTAL# 7:

Mike:

Quote

Jack can't bring himself to admit there is no scripture that says Jesus spoke all things into being.

Reply:

In the beginning was THE WORD (logos). The Greek “logos” comes from the verb “lego” which means “to speak.” Verses 2-3 say that all things came into being by Him. Ergo….

I asked:

Quote

What was the Word doing in the creation if not speaking?

Mike replied:

Quote

The Word of God was being spoken BY GOD. Words themselves do not speak Jack. Words are spoken. Actually, it means he was God's “spokesman”, but you don't like that truth, so you will have to suffice with this other answer.

Reply:

This lame reply means that Mike has no answer to what Jesus was doing in the beginning. Jesus was Himself the Word. The name “the Word” is Christ's name. It is NOT the Father's name. It indicates that He was acting in the beginning at the creation.

The name “Word” in reference to Jesus is just a name which indicates something about His character and His actions. He is also called “the Rock.”

I said:

Quote

This is not a direct answer to the question: Did Jesus speak the creation into being? Yes or no?

Mike answered:

Quote

Show me the scripture that explicitly says he did, and I'll answer it for you again.

Reply:

Evasive! The Greek “logos” means “to speak.” The Word “spoke.”

Mike said:

Quote

The Word OF GOD who was WITH GOD. Either one of those two phrases should be enough for you to realize that the Word was a different entity than the God he was OF and WITH.

Reply:

It implies nothing more than the Word was a different person. Example: In the beginning was the Woman, and the Woman was WITH the Man, and the Woman was Man. The Woman is not a different “entity” but rather a different person.

I said:

Quote

The scriptures Mike offer do not assert that the glorified Jesus is the servant of His Father.

Mike replied:

Quote

Reply:

This does not mean that the newer translations mean the same thing that Mike means. The whole idea in the Greek “pais” is that Jesus was a child-servant. Mike is trying to rob the word “pais” of the family aspect to the word and he thinks the newer translations support him. Mike assumes that there was only one kind of servant. The fact that the newer translations capitalize the “S” in “Servant” indicates that the translators want us to think that Christ was more than a mere “servant” in the common sense of the term. Jesus was a servant who was a family member unlike the common servant who was not a family member. Again, the whole idea is that Jesus was a servant who was legally a “child.” Then He was glorified to the full status of “Son.” According to Hebrews 3:5-6 Jesus is a Son in His own house while Moses was a servant in his house. So the word “Son” in reference to Jesus is opposite of the word “servant” while the word “child” referred to His legal status as a servant UNTIL the appointed time of His Father. We are the house of the exalted Son and He owns us. The Owner is the Sovereign Master. Jude 4 says that Jesus is our “only DESPOTES and Lord.” The Greek “despotes” means “sovereign master.” Strong's# 1203 says that “despotes” means “ABSOLUTE ruler.”

Mike:

Quote

All of those bolded “he’s” represent God. WHO made the universe? THROUGH whom did He do it?

Reply:

The English “worlds” is fallacious because the apostle was not talking about the Father creating the universe. It is the Greek “ton aion” which means “the ages.” Young's Literal Translation says “the ages.” It refers to the successive periods [or ages] of Israel's history leading up to the exaltation of Christ. This is another example of how “poieo” (English, “made”) does not mean “created.” Ages are not “created.” Ages are ordained to come to pass. The apostle said that God has “made” (ordained) the ages because of Christ. The Greek “dia” does not mean “by” or “through” in this section of Hebrews. It means “because of.” The apostle was saying that the Father ordained the ages “because of ” Christ. Whenever we see the Greek “dia” in this section we know it means “because of” for God cannot equivocate. A word cannot mean several things in the same context. God's integrity is at stake. Note in 2:1 where “dia” clearly means “because of” and is translated that way in the YLT:

This interpretation reconciles with verse 10 inwhich the Father Himself CLEARLY AND UNMISTAKEABLY says that the heavens and the earth are the WORK of the Son's own hands. The Greek work is the English “labor.” The Father Himself said that the heavens and the earth are the LABOR of the Son's own hands. At first Mike said that this “fits with scripture well.” But now he dances around it. It would be better if Mike just join the Muslims who say that verse 10 is corrupt. At least the Muslims accept it for what it says! But Mike dances around it. Mike should either concede what verse 10 explicitly says or claim “corruption” like the Muslims!

Verses 1-2 cannot be saying that the Father created the universe. This would mean that verse 10 contradictes verses 1-2. The Father ordained the ages because of Christ and Christ created the universe.

Mike said:

Quote

Reply:

Mike is not hearing me. I affirmed that the creation was appointed TO something. I said that Peter did not need to ex
plicitly say it because his audience already knew it. I meant that we are not bound by Mike's “formula” in that the word “TO” must be explicitly stated. Stephen said that the construction of the tabernacle was “appointed” without saying why it was appointed (7:50). Stephen knew that his audience already knew why the construction of the tabernacle was appointed. He did not need to say it.

Mike:

Quote

This is where I quoted the Strong's from. Hold your curser over #4160 in the KJV version. You'll see I pasted the very first definition.
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Act&chapter=4&verse=24

poieo 1) to make 1a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.

Here's another source which utilizes Strong along with others:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/poieo.html
And it says of “poieo”

Definition
to make
with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.

Reply:

As JustAskin has rightly said, “Online sources are not reliable.” Strong's NO WHERE says that “poieo” means “to create” or “to produce.”

Mike:

Quote

I only pasted the first two definitions out of many. I think you might owe me an apology.

Apologize for what? I did not accuse Mike of any wrong ethics. I just think that He does not know what He is doing. That's all.

Mike:

Quote

You do know there are different versions of Strong's, right? They don't always match exactly.

I have found nothing from Strong's which says that “poieo” means “to create.” Even Goodrick and Kohlenberger's NIV Concordance which is after the tradition of Strong's does not include “to create” in its numerous definitions of “poieo.” Yet we have a CLEAR statement in Hebrews 1:10 inwhich the Father Himself said that the heavens and the earth are the LABOR (ergo) of the Son's own hands.

Mike:

Quote

I think this “fully investitured son” is another conjecture paraphrase Jack uses a lot. Are these words actually in scripture somewhere?

I replied:

Quote

Mike again:

Quote

I'll take that as a “Yes, it is another one of my conjecture paraphrases” and a “No, it can't actually be found in scripture, just like Jesus speaking all things into being”.

Reply:

Is Mike going to deal with Galatians 4 or not? Paul said that the heir as long as he is a child differs nothing from a servant UNTIL the appointed time of the father. So at the appointed time of the father the child-heir became a son and was no longer the servant that he was as a child. I call it being “fully investitured.” I am open to Mike giving us his term for it.

Is Mike going to deal with the fact that Paul went on to spiritually apply this principle to Jesus when He became under the law, that is, when He became under the law which regarded children as servants UNTIL the appointed time of the father? Or is Mike going to continue to sweep this under the rug too? If Jesus became under the law which constituted Him legally a child-servant, then He must not have been a servant before He became under the law.

I said:

Quote

The whole idea is that Jesus was the CHILD-SERVANT of God.

Mike replied:

Quote

So Jesus as a 30 year old man was a “child” servant of God? Why do you mix the words “child” and “servant”?…It doesn't ever seem to apply to 30 year old people though.

Reply:

There Mike goes again making me repeat myself. I said that the title “child” in reference to Jesus was not about “carnal things like age.” I said that it was about Christ's legal status under the law. When He became under the law He assumed the legal status of a child. The child was a servant UNTIL the appointed time of the Father.

Mike:

Quote

It doesn't ever seem to apply to 30 year old people though.

Reply:

Why won't Mike deal with Galatians 4 instead of sweeping it under the rug? Paul was speaking to grown up men and women telling them that before Christ redeemed them they had the legal status of children.

Mike:

Quote

Using the word “child” for the adult Jesus brings up memories of Will Ferrell in that “Talladega Nights” movie where he prefers to pray to the “little baby Jesus in the manger”.

Reply:

Read Galatians 4. Paul was speaking to grown up men and women telling them that they were “children” while they were under the law. Christ assumed their legal status as the “child” so they could be redeemed. Mike has no gospel truth in his heart. No, none at all.

Mike:

Quote

So Jack, are you seriously asserting that Peter and John were praying to God through the name of the “child” Jesus? Was it the 5 year old Jesus?

Reply:

I have said that the historical Jesus assumed the legal status of the “child” which differed nothing from a servant. This is the basis and grounds of all benefits to mankind. The glorified Jesus is no longer under that law and is therefore no longer a servant. He is “Son” over His own house (Heb. 3).

Mike:

The word “pais” doesn't ever mean “adult” person.

Quote

Reply:

Unless it refers to the legal status of an adult (Gal. 4). Peter was referring to Jesus' legal status under the law which constituted Him as a “child-servant.” Jesus is no longer under that law. He is a full Son now and not a servant.

Mike:[qoute]You keep bringing up Galatians 4. That passage is actually about us receiving our rights as sons of God. It doesn't say anything about Jesus being a “child-servant” at all that I can see[/quote]
Reply:

Paul was talking about the law which constituted the child as a servant UNTIL the appointed time of the father. Paul went on to say that Jesus was made under that law so that we might receive the adoption as sons. In other words, Christ took our place under the law as child-servant. But He is not the child-servant now. He is the fully investitured Son over His own house and is a servant to no one.

Mike:

Quote

Why would they STILL be praying through the “child” Jesus?

Reply:

I have answered already. The person and works of the historical Jesus are the grounds and basis of all benefits. That Mike has to ask this question at all reveals the darkness which is in his heart.

I said:

Quote

Evasive! The Greek literally says, “And God was the Word.” Mike did not address this specifically. He avoided it like the plague!

Mike replied:

Quote

I actually thought I made it pretty clear when I said:

Reply:

Too bad for Mike that the NWT translators are dead wrong as well inconsistent. John 1:1 is the ONLY place where the NWT translates “a god” when there is no definite article. Verse 6 also does not have the definite article. It says, “There was a man sent from God whose name was John.” By NWT “grammar” it should read thus, “There was a man sent from a god whose name was John.” Yet the NWT renders it “God”

The grammarians of the Reformation Study Bible answer the NWT's “a god” rendering. Please note the commentary in bold:

Quote

In this verse the Word is expressly affirmed to be God. The Word existed already “in the beginning” (a clear reference to the opening words of the Bible), which is a way of denoting the eternity that is unique to God. John states clearly, “the Word was God.” Some have observed that the word translated “God” here has no definite article, and argued on this basis that it means “a god” rather than “God.” This is a misunnderstanding; the article is omitted because of the word order in the Greek sentence (the predicate God has been placed first for emphasis). The New Testament never endorses the idea of “a god,” an expression that implies polytheism and is in sharp conflict with the consistent monotheism of the Bible, Reformation Study Bible, John 1:1 note, page 1658

The defiinite article is absent because the predicate “God” is placed before the subject “the Word.” This is for emphasis. So it literally reads, “And GOD was the Word” with the emphasis on the predicate “God.” This is the correct grammar of John 1:1. WJ has more than adequately pointed out that the NWT was not translated by Greek scholars. Their translation bias is evident by the fact that John 1:1 is the ONLY place where they translate “a god” when the definite article is absent. Thus our friend Mike is a polytheist without a doubt. So let him not fault the Trinitarian!

Mike:

Quote

You'll notice that John distinguishes between the two mentions of the word “god”. One of them has the definite article “THE” in front of it, while the other one does NOT have the definite article “THE” in front of it. As I have tried to explain, the Koine Greek didn't use the indefinite article “a”. The “a” was implied and English translations have to insert it to make it understandable to us. I mentioned John 8:44 where Satan is called “a” manslayer and “a” liar. It is laid out in the Greek just like John 1:1,
that (one) man killer was from beginning
because liar he is and the father of it
You can see that the way they are laid out is almost identical. The adjectives that describe the noun (man killer and liar) precede the verbs (was and is) and the indefinite article “a” is missing. It's the same with John 1:1. The adjective (god) precedes the verb (was) and the indefinite article “a” is missing. What do the English translations all do in John 8:44? They switch around the noun, adjective and verb and add the “implied” indefinite article “a” and come up with “That one was a manslayer from the beginning” and “he is a liar and the father of lies”. Okay, I finally muddled through all the non-topical stuff; now for the topic this debate is supposed to be about.

Reply:

Wrong! Mike says that John 8:44 is laid out “identically” with John 1:1. This is blatantly false and proves that the NWT translators were not Greek grammarians as WJ has shown. In John 1:1 the predicate is placed before the subject which is NOT the case in John 8:44. It does not say, “manslayer (predicate) was he (subject). It says, “he (subject) manslayer (predicate) was.” But in John 1:1 the predicate is before the subject placing emphasis on the predicate. “And GOD (predicate) was the Word (subject).

Mike:

Quote

I think Jack is missing a vital piece of info here. The Hebrew does NOT say “King of kings”. Nebuchadnezzar is called the “kingS of kings”. Do you see that? The first word is also plural. Artaxerxes is called the KINGS………of kings. Canaan is called the SLAVES………of slaves. Solomon's ONE song is called the SONGS……… of songs. Does it mean these singular things are “multiples of something” within themselves? Was Nebuchadnezzar “multiple persons in a king-head” because the plural “kingS” was used of him? Or could it just mean that he was being called the “grandiose king”? In English, we would have a different way of implying that Nebuchadnezzar was more “mighty” or “majestic” or “grandiose” than the other kings. We would use capital letter
s and say he was the King of kings, like we do for Jesus. The Hebrews didn't distinguish between capital and small letters, so their way of indicating that Nebuchadnezzar was “mighty” or “majestic” or “grandiose” was to pluralize the word “king”. To them, that meant the same thing as capitalizing it does to us.
Don't forget that the Hebrew word for “plural” actually means “term of grandiosities”. What do you think?

Two-fold reply:

1. Mike just won't give it up! Genesis 1:26 does NOT say, “And the Gods of Gods said….” It simply says, “And God said….”

2. The plural pronouns “US” and “OUR” and “WE” are not used in any of the examples Mike's source gives.

Mike:

Quote

Jack disagrees with me and every scholar known to man about Ezekiel prophesying about Jesus.

Three-fold reply:

1. Wow! There are many futurists who deny that David is a reference to Christ. Dispensationalists say that “David” in Ezekiel is the resurrected patriarch and not Christ. So not all futurists agree that David is Christ.

2. Some say that Ezekiel chaps 34 & 37 were fulfilled in 1948 http://crossfaithministry.org/thebookofezekiel.html

3. Some say that the battle of Gog and Magog was fulfilled in Ezekiel's time

Quote

Much has to be read into the Bible in order to make Ezekiel 38 and 39 fit modern-day military realities. Anyone reading these two chapters for the first time will come away impressed with the notion that the events describe what we today consider a battle fought a long time ago with weapons that fit the times. Those who claim to interpret the Bible literally have a problem on their hands.

The second source above says that the battle of Gog and Magog was fulfilled in Ezekiel's time. David the Prince reigns during the battle of Gog and Magog. The implication is clear!

Mike:

Quote

I won't debate it with him any farther, for we obviously disagree.

Reply:

Mike has to continue the discussion from Ezekiel. He invoked Ezekiel 34:24 in his opening statement as a “proof text” against the divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Mike has to prove ALL that he said in his opening statement. So if Mike bails out on Ezekiel he loses the debate.

I said:

Quote

I am aware of the futurist commentaries. I reject them ALL just as Mike rejects ALL trinitarian commentary. Mike cannot expect me to accept futurist commentary any more than I can expect him to accept trinitarian commentary. This debate is about each of us defending our own personal beliefs from scripture.

Mike replied:

Quote

I don't think you can hide behind “preterist” for this, can you? Do you “preterists” believe that all OT prophecies about Christ were fulfilled during OT times?

Reply:

Preterists do not believe that all prophecies about Christ were fulfilled in old testament times. Ezekiel 34 & 37 is not about Christ. Preterists believe that all peophecy was fulfilled by ad70.

Mike:

Quote

But Jack says he doesn't believe Jer 30:9 is a prophecy about Jesus either…..why?

Reply:

Mike wants to move on to Jeremiahh 30:9. He wants to scurry over to Jeremiah 30:9 because I have pinned him down on the point that the Prince (David) will be required to offer sacrifices for his own sins. Mike says that the Davidic Prince is Christ. Therefore, Christ will be required to offer sacrifices for His own sins.

I said that I would be glad to discuss Jeremiah 30:9 when Mike deals specifically with the time indicators such as “at hand” and “in your days” and “shall no more be prolonged” etc.

Mike:

Quote

I am glad that Jack has accepted there is such a thing as a “plural of majesty”, as his response indicates.

Reply:

I did NOT accept the plural of majesty theory.

Mike:

Quote

…somehow, while debating all these other things, we have lost sight of the fact that this debate is supposed to be about “Plural God”.

Reply:

Mike's opening statement attacks the Plural God using Ezekiel 34:24 because of the CLEAR distinction between David and God. Mike thinks that David is Christ. Therefore, he concludes that Christ is not God. I agree with Mike that David in Ezekiel cannot be God. But I disagree that David is Christ and for Mike to prove his case against the Plural God he must prove that David is Christ as he asserted in his opening statement. Mike cannot win his case against the Plural God without proving the assertions he made in his opening statement. Therefore, he must prove that David is Christ in Ezekiel. This is why I was sooo glad that Mike chose Ezekiel 34:24. I was glad because I knew that Mike thought he had a “slam dunk” argument from Ezekiel 34. But I have laid out a host of evidence which militates against the interpretation that David is Christ.

I now offer another proof that David cannot be Christ. God told Ezekiel that David would reign over the children of Israel who had already been scattered among the nations:

Quote

21 and say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations WHERE THEY HAVE GONE. I will gather them from all around and bring THEM back into their own land. 22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of THEM and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms. 23 They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, a] and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God.
24 ” 'My servant David will be king over THEM, and THEY will all have one shepherd. THEY will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. 25 THEY will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the
land where your fathers lived. THEY and their children and their children's children will live there forever, and David my servant will be THEIR prince forever (37:21-25).

Mike:

Quote

I submit that Jack cannot try to prove the word “Elohim”

Two-fold reply:

1. I need only to prove my assertions in my opening statement. I asserted nothing about the word elohim in my opening statement. I need only to prove the assertions I made and I can choose to attack anything I want from Mike's opening statement.

2. I submit that Mike cannot prove that David is Christ in Ezekiel 34 & 37. Therefore, he cannot prove the assertions he made in his opening statement.

Mike:

Quote

Reply:

This is not an accurate statement. I said that Jesus is God because He brought all things into being while His Father's role was that of “appointing” all things to come into being. Mike himself said that this “fits with scripture well.”

Mike:

Quote

I further submit that he must instead try to prove that the use of the plural word “elohim” would mean “a plurality of persons in a godhead” whether those “persons” included Jesus or not.
In other words, he should be trying to prove it without ever bringing up his belief that Jesus is God. Otherwise, the debate becomes about whether or not Jesus is God, not about the word “elohim” having a definition of “plurality of persons in a godhead”.
This last part is what we are supposed to be debating here.

Reply:

Mike does not know what he is doing. We are supposed to be defending the assertions we made in our opening statements and attacking the other guy's opening statement.

Mike:

Quote

The plural form NEVER means “a plurality of persons in a godhead” anymore than “kings” meant that Nebuchadnezzar was a “plurality of persons in a kinghead”.

Reply:

The plural pronouns clearly indicate a plurality of persons.

Mike:

Quote

Again, the plural “elohim” means only one of two things: “ONE GRANDIOSE GOD”, or “MORE THAN ONE GOD”. So for Jack to deny it means “one grandiose God” is for him to assert that it means “more than one God”. Those are the only two choices the Hebrew language and grammar will allow.

This is an implicit denial that the Father is God for it was Jesus who spoke and said, “Let US make man in OUR image and after OUR likeness.”

Mike:

Quote

As if the uses of the plural of gandiosities in actual scripture were not enough, I have also shown archeaological evidence by way of the El Armana tablets that the predecessors of the Hebrews also used the plural of grandiosities.

Reply:

Nope! The examples in the tablets say that the full expression “kings of kings” means grandiosities. They do not say that the word “kings” by itself express grandiosities.

Mike:

Quote

I have shown that because we know that Jesus helped with the creation and that he also shared the image of his God

Two-fold reply:

1. Mike's statement that Jesus merely “helped” with the creation is a redaction of the new testament testimony. The Father Himself said that the heavens and the earth are the LABOR (ergo) of Christ's OWN HANDS (Heb. 1:8-10). Mike is arguing with the Father whom he says is his God. The creation is Christ's OWN LABOR (ergo). How is it that Mike can say that Jesus merely “helped?”

2. Jesus does not merely “share” the image of God. He IS the “EXACT representation of God's substance” (Heb. 1). The Greek “charakter” (exact) means “indistinguishable.” Jesus is INDISTINGUISHABLE from God. He is the “INDISTINGUISHABLE representation of God's substance.”

Mike:

Quote

I will NOT be discussing whether or not Jesus is God anymore, because that is not what the title of this debate is.

Reply:

Mike is bailing out! He said that Jesus is not God in his opening statement. I am attacking the asseertions he made in his opening statement. How could Mike think that we can discuss the plurality of God without discussing the divinity of Christ? What planet is Mike living on? Mike is bailing out I tell you!

Mike:

Quote

So far, Jack's ONLY stand is:
1. Jesus IS God, so “elohim” must somehow mean “plurality of persons in a godhead”.

Reply:

I said nothing about the word “elohim” in my opening statement! I argued from the plural pronouns! I need only to defend my own assertions in my opening statement. Let Mike read my opening statement again.

I submit that Mike cannot disprove my treatment of the plural pronouns “US” and “WE” and “OUR” in reference to God. Mike's only reply is that the plural pronouns in reference to God are used only four times. That's it! That's the best Mike's got? Mike has not explained why he would take the plural pronouns figuratively in 1:26 but literally in 1:27.

If Mike is going to win this debate he must continue with “David” in Ezekiel because it is in his opening statement. He must continue to defend what he said in his opening statement or he loses! If he quits with that argument then I have disproven it. I reproduce my latest argument from Ezekiel:

God told Ezekiel that David would reign over the children of Israel who had already been scattered among the nations:

Quote

21 and say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations WHERE THEY HAVE GONE. I will gather them from all around and bring THEM back into their own land. 22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of THEM and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms. 23 They will
no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, a]' >[] and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God.
24 ” 'My servant David will be king over THEM, and THEY will all have one shepherd. THEY will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. 25 THEY will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your fathers lived. THEY and their children and their children's children will live there forever, and David my servant will be THEIR prince forever (37:21-25).

David began to reign over those who had already been dispossessed of the land in Ezekiel's day. Therefore, “David” is NOT Christ and Mike has no argument against the divinity of our Lord from Ezekiel.

the Roo

July 24, 2010 at 6:04 pm#205745

Blocked

Mike's 7th Rebuttal

Jack said:

Quote

It implies nothing more than the Word was a different person. Example: In the beginning was the Woman, and the Woman was WITH the Man, and the Woman was Man. The Woman is not a different “entity” but rather a different person.

THE woman Eve was most definitely a different entity, or being, than THE man Adam. So while she could be WITH Adam, she was Eve, not Adam. Man is made in the image of God…….which one of us consists of three individual persons inside a “man-head”? Which one of our sons is the same exact being as us?

Jack said:

Quote

Mike is not hearing me. I affirmed that the creation was appointed TO something. I said that Peter did not need to explicitly say it because his audience already knew it. I meant that we are not bound by Mike's “formula” in that the word “TO” must be explicitly stated. Stephen said that the construction of the tabernacle was “appointed” without saying why it was appointed (7:50). Stephen knew that his audience already knew why the construction of the tabernacle was appointed. He did not need to say it.

You actually mean Acts 7:44 which says,

Our ancestors had the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness, just as God who spoke to Moses ordered him to make it according to the design he had seen.

God appointed Moses TO or AS something here. He appointed Moses AS “Chief builder of the earthly tabernacle”. But thanks for bringing up verse 50, which says,

50Has not my hand made all these things?'

Whose HAND has made these things? It is the same Greek word for hand that is used in Heb 1:10.

And speaking of Heb 1:10, I still hold that Paul took a break from talking about the Son to praise the Father, because of two main reasons.

1. The original passage Paul quotes starts with,
24 So I said:
“Do not take me away, O my God, in the midst of my days;
your years go on through all generations.

25 In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth…..”

Why would God be asking Jesus to not take Him away in the midst of His days? Can God die?

2. But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.
Jesus most definitely didn't remain the same. He was spirit, then flesh, then dead, then spirit again. How could Paul have meant that Psalm spoke of Jesus?

But this is a topic for another debate. Here is the crux of it Jack: Let's say we use your interpretation and Jesus is the one who did the “labor” of creation. How in the world does that prove he is God? God's angel did the “labor” of wiping out 185,000 Assyrians in one night – was that angel God? Four angels hold back the winds in Rev “with their hands” – are they God? Bezalel did the “labor” of building the earthly tabernacle that God “appointed” – is Bezalel God? Are you getting the point here? If God said “Do it”, and Jesus then did it, how does that necessarily make him God?

Jack said:

Quote

Too bad for Mike that the NWT translators are dead wrong as well inconsistent. John 1:1 is the ONLY place where the NWT translates “a god” when there is no definite article.

The main difference here is that John distinguishes one as “THE god” and not the other. That is not to say the every time the Greeks mentioned God they had to refer to Him as “THE God”. It is similar today in English. If we are simply saying, “I love God”, there is no reason to distinguish Him as THE God. But if we are mentioning two in one sentence, we would most likely distinguish God as THE God. For example, “Paul calls Satan by the title god, but that doesn't mean he's calling him THE God.” That's what John was doing. He was distinguishing the two mighty ones mentioned from each other. Only one of the two was THE God.

Jack said:

Quote

1. Mike just won't give it up! Genesis 1:26 does NOT say, “And the Gods of Gods said….” It simply says, “And God said….”

2. The plural pronouns “US” and “OUR” and “WE” are not used in any of the examples Mike's source gives.

Is that it Jack? That's why God is plural? Because God talked to someone else, it means that other person had to be God too? Hmmmm………

Jack said:

Quote

Mike has to continue the discussion from Ezekiel. He invoked Ezekiel 34:24 in his opening statement as a “proof text” against the divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Mike has to prove ALL that he said in his opening statement. So if Mike bails out on Ezekiel he loses the debate.

I strongly believe that Ez 34 and 37 contain prophesies about the coming of Christ. Every legitimate Bible scholar agrees with my understanding. If Jack and his preterist friends want to rewrite the Bible, then more power to them. He doesn't agree with my view of Ez 34 and 37, so I have offered Jer 30:9. I now also offer Micah 5:4 as proof this “leader” or “ruler” we now know as Jesus is someone other than “Elohim”, not a part of “Elohim”.

Jer 30:9 says, 9 Instead, they will serve the LORD their God
and David their king,
whom I will raise up for them.

Micah 5:2-5 says, 2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”

3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned
until the time when she who is in labor gives birth
and the rest of his brothers return
to join the Israelites.

4 He will stand and shepherd his flock
in the strength of the LORD,
in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God.
And they will live securely, for then his greatness
will reach to the ends of the earth.

5 And he will be their peace.

Let's see Jack say this one isn't a prophecy about Jesus. And guess what? It says Jesus will shepherd his flock in the strength and majesty “OF THE NAME OF JEHOVAH HIS ELOHIM”.

Jack said:

Quote

Your opening statement said there was no use of the plural of majesty in the scriptures. I
shown at least 5 of them. You can't refute them, so does that mean you lose the debate?

Jack said:

Quote

And I've made the logical point that just because someone does what God commanded and gave the power to do does not mean that person is God.

Jack said:

Quote

Mike wants to move on to Jeremiah 30:9. He wants to scurry over to Jeremiah 30:9 because I have pinned him down on the point that the Prince (David) will be required to offer sacrifices for his own sins.

I'm sorry, which verse says God's “servant David” will offer sacrifices for his own sins? Or is this just more of your “conjecture paraphrasing”?

Jack said:

Quote

The plural pronouns clearly indicate a plurality of persons.

Of course they do Jack. Just like if I say, “Let us get something to eat”, your first thought would be that I'm talking to the other persons within my own being.

Jack said:

Quote

This is an implicit denial that the Father is God for it was Jesus who spoke and said, “Let US make man in OUR image and after OUR likeness.”

Scripturally prove that statement…….WITHOUT conjecture!

Jack said:

Quote

Preterists do not believe that all prophecies about Christ were fulfilled in old testament times. Ezekiel 34 & 37 is not about Christ. Preterists believe that all peophecy was fulfilled by ad70.

So I was right. You can't invoke the preterist belief to pretend Ez has nothing to do with the coming Christ.

Jack said:

Quote

Nope! The examples in the tablets say that the full expression “kings of kings” means grandiosities. They do not say that the word “kings” by itself express grandiosities.

Read it again. It only mentions the plural form of the word “alani” being used.

Jack said:

Quote

1. Mike's statement that Jesus merely “helped” with the creation is a redaction of the new testament testimony. The Father Himself said that the heavens and the earth are the LABOR (ergo) of Christ's OWN HANDS (Heb. 1:8-10). Mike is arguing with the Father whom he says is his God. The creation is Christ's OWN LABOR (ergo). How is it that Mike can say that Jesus merely “helped?”

Yet Stephen quotes Isaiah which says God's hands created the universe. Did Stephen think Jesus was God when he said that? Read Acts 7 for the answer……especially the end when he is able to only see the glory of God, but all of Jesus sitting at God's right hand.

Jack said:

Quote

I said nothing about the word “elohim” in my opening statement! I argued from the plural pronouns!

Does anyone else here find it amusing that after many posts on this site about how “elohim” implies that God is plural, now Jack wants to distance himself from “elohim” altogether?

Jack said:

Quote

I have a better idea Jack. Why don't YOU explain away all the other times Elohim is used with SINGULAR pronouns? Was God only “plural” four times in the whole Bible?

I listed 7 main points I've made at the end of my last post. Jack has yet to adequately answer any of them. He has distanced himself from what the plural word “elohim” really implies by saying:

Quote

I said nothing about the word “elohim” in my opening statement!

Question: Jack, do you now admit that the use of the plural word “elohim” has nothing to do with whether God is plural or not? If no, please explain in light of the overwhelming evidence I've shown.

Jack does have one thing right. I don't know what I'm doing as I said before starting this “structured” debate. I assumed right from the start that this debate was about “elohim meaning God is plural”. I believe everyone thought that was the intention, hence we didn't call it “Trinity – True or False” or “Is Jesus God Almighty?”. It was a rookie mistake on my part to not make it more clear, so now this has become a trinity debate that encompasses everything the trinitarians claim prove Jesus is God. My apologies to all, for it is this oversight on my part that has led to these enormously large and boring posts that really amount to nothing but Jack and I going round and round with no closure on anything.

If one is going to debate whether Jesus is God, he should break the points down to be addressed completely one by one so it doesn't become a jumbled mess like this debate has become.

Again, my apologies to anyone who still has a couple hours to kill and still is reading these monster posts.

peace and love,
mike

July 29, 2010 at 8:28 pm#206714

http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=26&c=34

Participant

REBUTTAL# 8:

Mike said;

Quote

THE woman Eve was most definitely a different entity, or being, than THE man Adam. So while she could be WITH Adam, she was Eve, not Adam.

Reply:

But God called both the man and the woman “the Adam.” In chapter 1 it says that “God created the Adam in His own image. Male and female He created them.” In Genesis 3 God said, “Behold, the Adam has become as one of US to know good and evil.” Then it says, “And God drove out the Adam from the garden.” So the man and the woman together constituted a single entity which God called “the Adam.”

Mike should define what he means by the word “entity.” According to Funk and Wagnall's Dictionary the word “entity” means “essence” or “substance.” Adam and Eve were the same substance. Hebrews 1 says that Christ is the same substance as His Father. “Who being the indistinguishable representation of His (the Father's) substance.”

Mike:

Quote

But thanks for bringing up verse 50, which says,

50Has not my hand made all these things?'

Whose HAND has made these things? It is the same Greek word for hand that is used in Heb 1:10.

Two-fold reply:

1. Now I want to thank Mike for pointing out verse 44. For Stephen CLEARLY said that God appointed the tabernacle. But he does not say why God appointed the tabernacle and according to Mike he should have said so.

2. In verse 50 Strong's definition “to direct” should apply. The “these things” are the tabernacle. It says “Whose hand has directed these things” (the “things” in reference to the tabernacle). It was God who directed the construction of the tabernacle. Poieo does not mean “to create.” The lexicons do not say that it means “to create” and Mike has yet to give an example from scripture that poieo means “to create.”

Mike:

And speaking of Heb 1:10, I still hold that Paul took a break from talking about the Son to praise the Father, because of two main reasons.

Two-fold reply:

1. Mike originally said that my statement “agrees with scripture well.” Let's not forget that Mike said this.

2. Unfortunately for Mike the context does not agree with him.

vs. 7, “And to which of the angels did he ever say….”

vs. 8, “But to the Son He says….”

Then verse 10 begins with the conjunction “and” which CLEARLY indicates that the Father is still speaking to the Son.

Mike:

Quote

1. The original passage Paul quotes starts with,
24 So I said:
“Do not take me away, O my God, in the midst of my days;
your years go on through all generations.

25 In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth…..”

Why would God be asking Jesus to not take Him away in the midst of His days? Can God die?

Reply:

Now this is super lame! David was asking God not to take him away in the midst of his days. Hebrews 1 identifies the Son as the God to whom David was speaking. Mike is choking on Hebrews 1. As I said in my last rebuttal it would be better if Mike became a Muslim and just out right denied that the passage is legit!

Mike:

Quote

Reply:

“8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”

Christ's person never changed and never will change. But He did change in his mode of existence

Mike claims that Jesus had a “big part” in creation and at the same time reduces Him to being a non participant. And if Jesus did have a “big part” Mike must tell us what exactly Christ's part was.

Mike:

Quote

Let's say we use your interpretation and Jesus is the one who did the “labor” of creation.How in the world does that prove he is God?

Reply:

Because it would take one who posessses ALMIGHTY power to create the universe! Mike knows this. This is why He needs to deny that the Father attributed the creation to the Son. If the Son can create the universe without being God, then why does Mike take issue with the interpretation that the Father is attributing the creation to the Son? I can't believe Mike actually asked this question. Why do the Muslims say that Hebrews 1:8-10 is corrupt? Because they know very well that if Jesus created the universe then He is God!

I said:

Quote

Too bad for Mike that the NWT translators are dead wrong as well inconsistent. John 1:1 is the ONLY place where the NWT translates “a god” when there is no definite article.

Mike replied:

Quote

The main difference here is that John distinguishes one as “THE god” and not the other.

Reply:

Circular! The second use of “God” is Predicate Nominative and so the article is not needed. Example: Verse 6 does not literally say “the God” but we know that John the Baptist was sent by “the God.” Was John the Baptist sent by “a god?”

Mike:

Quote

That is not to say the every time the Greeks mentioned God they had to refer to Him as “THE God”.

Reply:

THANK YOU MIKE!

Mike:

Quote

Only one of the two was THE God.

Reply:

Again circular. And Mike did not address my point that John 8:44 is NOT an example of the “grammar” he peddles in John 1:1. Mike said that John 8:44 is written “identically” with John 1:1 and is therefore an “example” of his freak Greek in John 1:1. But in John 1:1 the predicate “God” is placed before the subject “the Word.” This is not the case in John 8:44 where the predicate comes after the subject. Therefore, John 8:44 is NOT an example of Mike's “grammar” in John 1:1.

Mike did not come up with this idea himself. He got this freak Greek from JW novices. And the fact that the construction of 1:1 and 8:4
4 are NOT identical means that Mike and his JW buddies have no credibility when they speak about Greek grammar.

Why didn't Mike address my point that the two verses are not identically the same? He needs to come up with an explanation before this debate is over or I will use it against him in my closing statement. This is a MAJOR point he must address!

Mike said:

Quote

Is that it Jack? That's why God is plural? Because God talked to someone else, it means that other person had to be God too?

Reply:

Yeah right! In seven rebuttals my whole case was argued from plural pronouns alone. Will Mike explain to us why he would take the plural pronouns figuratively in verse 26 but literally in verse 27?

I said:

Quote

Mike replied:

Quote

I strongly believe that Ez 34 and 37 contain prophesies about the coming of Christ.

Reply:

Then animal sacrifices will be re-instituted and Christ will be required to offer a sacrifice for His own sins (chs 43-45). This does not seem to bother Mike at all.

Mike:

Quote

Every legitimate Bible scholar agrees with my understanding.

Three-fold reply:

1. Not all “legitimate” Bible scholars agree that David is Christ. There are many who say that David is the resurrected patriarch. Which “legitimate” Bible scholars are more “legitimate?” Those who say that David is Christ? Or those who say that David is the resurrected patriarch?

2. The “legitimate” Bible scholars which Mike gave us do not comment on 37:21. Verse 21 says this:

Quote

21 “Then say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Surely I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, wherever they have gone, and will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land;

God told Ezekiel that He would gather the children of Israel who already had been scattered and that David would be “THEIR Prince” (vs. 25). The “legitimate” scholars Mike gave do NOT comment on verse 21. They comment only on the verses which come after verse 21.

Is this “legitimate” and scholarly commentary? Shouldn't Biblical interpretation be based in the line upon line principle of interpretation? Is it “legitimate” to fail to give commentary on statements which give us an indication as to the timing of fulfillment?

3. An example from one of Mike's “legitimate” commentators:

Mike:

Quote

Matthew Henry says:
Commentary on Ezekiel 34:17-31

The whole nation seemed to be the Lord's flock, yet they were very different characters; but he knew how to distinguish between them. By good pastures and deep waters, are meant the pure word of God and the dispensing of justice. The latter verses, 23-31, prophesy of Christ,…”

Matthew Henry gives no commentary on verse 21 at all. No, not at all. He talks about some verses that precede 21 and then skips over to 23-31.

Verse 21 says that God would gather the children of Israel who had already been scattered and then says that David would be King to “even them”.

Leupold is a futurist who does comment on verse 21. He admits that verse 21 refers to a gathering in the past. He says,

Quote

The gathering together of the chldren of Israel was to take effect in the first place in the return from Babylon, when the distinction between Israel and Judah should cease. Leupold on Ezekiel p. 389-90

Okay, a “legitimate” Bible scholar says that the gathering was to take effect in the first place in the return from Babylon. Now verse 24 says that David shall be king over THEM.

Therefore, “in the first place” David is NOT Christ.

Mike:

Quote

If Jack and his preterist friends want to rewrite the Bible, then more power to them.

Reply:

My Lord! Mike can't answer verse 21 or my point about Christ being required to offer sacrifices for His own sins. So he just hurls an accusation saying that preterists have rewritten the Bible. This accusation comes from a man who adheres to the NWT which inserted the word “Jehovah” in the new testament in the place of “kurios” 237 times! This has been criticized by many who are also “legitimate” Bible scholars. For example,

Quote

The New Catholic Encyclopedia… criticizes the NWT's rendering of Kyrios as “Jehovah” in 237 instances in the New Testament, the rendering “means” instead of “is” in Matthew 26:26, and the insertion of “other” at Colossians 1:16-17.[42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….iptures

So the NWT deletes “kurios” 237 times and replaces it with “Jehovah.” It renders the verb “is” as “means” and inserts the word “other” in Colossians 1:15. Yet Mike criticizes others whom he thinks have “rewritten” the Bible. Wow!

Mike has lost this debate!

Mike:

Quote

He doesn't agree with my view of Ez 34 and 37, so I have offered Jer 30:9. I now also offer Micah 5:4 as proof this “leader” or “ruler” we now know as Jesus is someone other than “Elohim”, not a part of “Elohim”.

Jer 30:9 says, 9 Instead, they will serve the LORD their God
and David their king,
whom I will raise up for them.

3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned
until the time when she who is in labor gives birth
and the rest of his brothers return
to join the Israelites.

5 And he will be their peace.

Let's see Jack say this one isn't a prophecy about Jesus. And guess what? It says Jesus will shepherd his flock in the strength and majesty “OF THE NAME OF JEHOVAH HIS ELOHIM”.

Reply:

Jeramiah 30:9:

1. It is speaking about the restoration of Israel and Judah which was fulfilled LONG BEFORE Christ appeared.

2. The prophecy of chapter 31 about God making the new covenant is to occur AFTER the prophecy of 30:9. The new covenant was made by Christ in the upper room. Therefore, the prophecy of Jeremiah 30 was fulfilled long before the upper room.

3. The God who makes the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 is Christ (Hebrews 8-9; and Matthew 26; Mark 14). So how can David in Jeremiah 30 be Christ who has a God?

Micah 5:2-5:

It is unfortunate that the futurists err on Micah 2 also. The futurists think that Micah is talking about the Messiah because of the statement that His “goings forth are from old, from everlasting.” They think that this refers to Christ's preexistence before time. But the word “goings forth” is the Hebrew “mowstaah” which means “family descent” (see Strong's# 4163). It refers to this ruler's long established human lineage. The word “olam” does not mean “everlasting” but rather “age.” This ruler would come from a long established lineage reaching far back regarding the age. There were many that could have fit this bill!

Again, the words “goings forth from old” refers to this ruler's long family descent.

Mike stopped with verse 5. What about verses 6-15?

Note that the Assyrians would be judged under this ruler (vss. 6-15). These were ANCIENT enemies of ANCIENT Israel that do not even exist anymore. So how can the prophecy have reference to the future reign of Christ? The Assyrians are LONG GONE!

So much for Mike's use of Micah as a “proof text” against our Lord's divinity.

I said:

Quote

Mike replied:

Quote

I'm sorry, which verse says God's “servant David” will offer sacrifices for his own sins? Or is this just more of your “conjecture paraphrasing”?

Reply:

We have been over this. God said that David shall be “their Prince.” Ezekiel's temple vision indicates that the Prince shall offer sacrifices for his own sins as well as for the people.

Quote

22 On that day the prince is to provide a bull as a sin offering for himself and for all the people of the land.

So Mike has a two-fold problem to solve:

1. That their Prince (David 34:24; 37:25) will be required to offer sacrifices for his own sins and,

2. That animal sacrifices will be re-instituted when the book of Hebrews EXPLICITLY says that they have been abolished.

The fulfillment of Ezekiel is in the past and anyone reading the book for the first time would take it that way. Only those who have been indoctrinated by the futurist tradition do not take the book as it reads.

I said:

Quote

The plural pronouns clearly indicate a plurality of persons.

Mike replied:

Quote

Of course they do Jack. Just like if I say, “Let us get something to eat”, your first thought would be that I'm talking to the other persons within my own being.

Except God said “let US make man in OUR IMAGE.” We are not made in the image of any other being but God alone!

I said:

Quote

This is an implicit denial that the Father is God for it was Jesus who spoke and said, “Let US make man in OUR image and after OUR likeness.”

Mike replied:

Quote

Scripturally prove that statement…….WITHOUT conjecture!

Necessary inference is not conjecture. The Westminster Confession says that the word of God is anything that God has explicitly said and is also that which may be deduced by necessarily consequence. This statement is in conformity with the laws of logic. God said that Jesus is “the Word.” The Greek “logos” comes from the verb “lego” which means “to speak.” Therefore, Jesus was in the beginning of the creation SPEAKING. Jesus is the God who spoke all things into being.

The name “the Word” in reference to Jesus indicates that He acted in some way that was characteristic of His name. All the names that God and Christ possess reflect the acts which they do or have done. So Jesus spoke all things into being. The Word is His name. Speaking is His fame!

Quote

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being by Him, and without Him not one thing has come into being that has come into being.

I said:

Quote

Preterists do not believe that all prophecies about Christ were fulfilled in old testament times. Ezekiel 34 & 37 is not about Christ. Preterists believe that all peophecy was fulfilled by ad70.

Mike replied:

Quote

So I was right. You can't invoke the preterist belief to pretend Ez has nothing to do with the coming Christ

.
Reply:

I have cited nothing but scripture to Mike. But he has replied with nothing but futurist commentary to me. So who is reading his scheme into Ezekiel?

When Mike first came to Heaven Net he pretty much stood on scripture. Now he relies on the doctrines of men quite a bit. This means that Mike is losing the arguments scripturally.

I said:

Quote

Mike replied:

Quote

Reply:

Stephen did not say that God created the universe. He said that God “ordained” the tabernacle and that His hands “directed” (poieo) its construction. The Father attributed the creation of the universe to the Son's own hands (Heb. 1:8-10).

I said:

Quote

I said nothing about the word “elohim” in my opening statement! I argued from the plural pronouns!

Mike replied:

Quote

Does anyone else here find it amusing that after many posts on this site about how “elohim” implies that God is plural, now Jack wants to distance himself from “elohim” altogether?

Reply:

I have said many times that the trinitarian doctrine is not based in the word “elohim” alone. And Mike's implication that I “now” distance myself from the word is a total misrepresentation of the facts. But I will give Mike the benefit of the doubt that he has a very poor memory. In our first debate I stressed the plural pronouns. We discussed the plural God concept on pages 3-4 and I repeatedly put most of the emphasis on the plural pronouns:

Quote

Jack: Please note that God said, “Who shall go for US?” Note the “US.” This is the same as in Genesis 1:26, “Let US make man in OUR image.” God is a plural unit and not a solitary unit as anti-trinitarians erroneously think.

Mike:The “Us” just shows that God communicates with Jesus and the other heavenly beings and possibly asks for their input.

Jack: What! The “Us” means that God asked for imput from heavenly beings? Give me a break! It says, “Let US make man in OUR image.” Are we made in the image of the heavenly beings? No way! We are made in the image of God ALONE! Therefore, the “Us” refers to a plural God.

Jack again: God is a PLURAL one. We have been over this already. See my previous comments to you on the “US” in Genesis 1:26. Note also that the same word “one” is used in Ephesians 2 where it says that the TWO (Jew and Gentile) are made into “ONE new man” (Ephesians 2:16). Paul said also that we are MANY but ONE body (1 Corinthians 12).

Mike: And the Genesis “us” is in line with the rest of the Scriptures that say that everything came from God through Jesus. It doesn't say how – God and Jesus could have deliberated for a billion years before creating the first angel. They could have took turns picking shapes and colors of their creations. God could have just said, “Son, I give you the power and authority – create what you wish.” But if by reading, “Let us make man in our image.”, you think that Jesus must have been God, then wouldn't man be God too? And if man is made in their image and is not God, why would Jesus have to be God because he shares his “image” with God?

Jack: Your whole statement is nonsense! God said, “let US make man in OUR image and after OUR likeness.” The it says, So God created man in HIS own image. Therefore, man was created in the image of the PLURAL God!

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=10

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=20

Though I dealt with “elohim” my main emphasis was on the plural pronouns as it is now and always has been. So Mike's suggestion that I “now” am doing something different is totally false. The plural pronouns have always been my emphasis in my approach to the plural God doctrine.

I said:

Quote

Mike:

Quote

I have a better idea Jack. Why don't YOU explain away all the other times Elohim is used with SINGULAR pronouns? Was God only “plural” four times in the whole Bible?

So four times is not enough?

Mike:

Quote

I listed 7 main points I've made at the end of my last post. Jack has yet to adequately answer any of them.

Reply:

Translated this means that Mike does not like my answers. And I have let Mike slide on a lot of things. For instance, I made the point that David used the Hebrew “Adonay” in reference to Christ in Psalm 110:5,

Quote

My Adonay (God) is at Your right hand;
He shall execute kings in the day of His wrath.

I informed Mike that “Adonay” refers to God alone and I advised him to see Strong's# 136. Mike did not reply. That's okay. I will be using this against him in my closing statement.

King David said that His God was at Jehovah's right hand.

I also pointed out that Jesus is called “Son” over His own house in contradistinction to Moses who is called “servant” in his house (Heb. 3). Therefore, Christ is no longer a servant. Two times I said this and two times Mike failed to reply.

There is a lot more that Mike has not answered. I have kept my list and will be using it all in my closing statement.

Mike:

Quote

Nope! The plural form “elohim” allows for plural unity in God. This is seen by the fact we are said to be made in the image of the “US.” We are made in the image of God ALONE. Therefore, God is a plural unity.

the Roo

August 1, 2010 at 7:04 pm#207253