- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 4 weeks, 1 day ago by
.
- Posts
I agree Nick,
He also became like us so that he could be the perfect High Priest for us knowing and understanding our weaknesses and temptations. He is the perfect High Priest who shed is blood one time as the perfect sacrifice and can perfectly intercede for us since he was sinless but was tempted just as we are and so fully understands mans condition.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 09 2006,07:18) Hi Oxy,
Look at the greek and you will see that
the sense of the verse is
that the Word
did not have equality by right and
decided not to take equality by force.
Hi NH,
Tell me, how does the Greek in Phil 2:6 substantiate your interpretation?Hi Oxy,
Just because you are not that hungry for scriptural truths does not mean you should think others are the same does it?Hi Is 1.18,
Harpagmos-to seize
based on a word meaning
to rob
and
to pillageIf Jesus
The wisdom of God
the selfless servant
needed to seize equality
he did not have it
and
chose not to seek it.Him I want to follow.
Dear Is 1:18 and Oxy,
I believe that you two have studied the scriptures to find the truth about the nature of God. I believe you are also sincere in what you are stating you see that the scriptures are saying.
However, even though I am sure you did make a strong effort to not let your studies be contaminated by a preconception or bias towards the trinity doctrine, I am sure you would agree that with that view in mind it is impossible not occassionally slip the trinity goggles back on during an interpretation.
I myself struggle with the allegorigal “goggles” during many studies.
In an above post you will find my interpretation of the identity of our Lord presented. I would like to encourage you to go through the scriptures again after you have read and understood the alternative interpretation I have shared with you.
I am not asking you to believe me or accept it, rather just to slip on the other mans goggles for a moment. Just like the proverbial “walking in another man's shoes”.
After doing that I would hope that at the very least you would see that, though you may still think I am wrong, an alternative view of the nature of Christ, different from the trinity, is possibly found in the scriptures.
In Him,
Mercy
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 09 2006,09:58) Hi Is 1.18, Harpagmos-to seize
based on a word meaning
to rob
and
to pillageIf Jesus
The wisdom of God
the selfless servant
needed to seize equality
he did not have it
and
chose not to seek it.Him I want to follow.
Yes, harpagamos is based on the Greek word “harpazo”, and this word's inference certaintly captures a violent, seizing action, BUT it is not harpazo. And the noun “harpagamos” is not as tightly defined, often conveying a passive tense. Also, if Paul wanted to convey a 'snatching' of equality then that begs the obvious question why didn't he simply use the Greek word 'harpazo, like John did to express 'taking by force' in John 10:John 10:12
“He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches (Gr. harpazō) them and scatters them.John 10:29
My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch (Gr. harpazō) them out of the Father's hand.Harpazo was available to Paul, and he used it elsewhere.
2 Corinthians 12:2
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago–whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows–such a man was caught up [Gr. harpazō – to seize, catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force)] to the third heaven.1 Thessalonians 4:17
Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up [Gr. harpazō] together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.So why didn't he use it in Philippians 2:6?, instead chosing to use a noun formed from that verb that of can carry a passive tense connotation (context dictates).
Thayer's, the standard Greek lexicon of the New Testament, interprets the passages as follows:
“[Christ Jesus], who, although (formerly when he was [logos asarkos]) bore the form (in which he appeared to the inhabitants of heaven) of God (the sovereign, opposite to[morphe doulos]), yet did not think that this equality with God was to be eagerly clung to or retained” (p. 418, Col. b).
Incidentally, Joseph H Thayer was actually a Unitarian, who did not affirm the deity of Christ.
I think if we attach a 'snatch' interpretation to harpagamos in Phil 2:6, then we also do violence to the context of the passage itself, which is after all about humility.
Philippians 2:2-7
2make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.
3Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;
4do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be,
7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.If 'harpagamos' in vs. 6 is taken to mean the Logos decided not to 'snatch at' equality with God – how is that humility? It doesn't fit contextually at all. If, however, you interpret it as a decision not to prize/retain the equality that He had intrinsically to take on the form (Gr. morphe) of a bond servant, then that is much more in keeping with the context of the passage.
I think it's better to let grammar dictate your doctrine, and not visa versa.
Quote (Mercy @ Sep. 09 2006,10:09) Dear Is 1:18 and Oxy, I believe that you two have studied the scriptures to find the truth about the nature of God. I believe you are also sincere in what you are stating you see that the scriptures are saying.
However, even though I am sure you did make a strong effort to not let your studies be contaminated by a preconception or bias towards the trinity doctrine, I am sure you would agree that with that view in mind it is impossible not occassionally slip the trinity goggles back on during an interpretation.
I myself struggle with the allegorigal “goggles” during many studies.
In an above post you will find my interpretation of the identity of our Lord presented. I would like to encourage you to go through the scriptures again after you have read and understood the alternative interpretation I have shared with you.
I am not asking you to believe me or accept it, rather just to slip on the other mans goggles for a moment. Just like the proverbial “walking in another man's shoes”.
After doing that I would hope that at the very least you would see that, though you may still think I am wrong, an alternative view of the nature of Christ, different from the trinity, is possibly found in the scriptures.
In Him,
Mercy
Hi Mercy,
Thanks for this post, you show a lot of class and humility in it. I will go have a look for your post and read it through.Blessings
Hi Is 1 .18
You say
“If 'harpagamos' in vs. 6 is taken to mean the Logos decided not to 'snatch at' equality with God – how is that humility? It doesn't fit contextually at all. If, however, you interpret it as a decision not to prize/retain the equality that He had intrinsically to take on the form (Gr. morphe) of a bond servant, then that is much more in keeping with the context of the passage. “Surely snatching at something you do not own is self interest and based on pride.
Tell me is snatching at something you do not possess selfless humility then?
If he had equality then what did he have after he was given even greater glory?
Quote Elidad, you have not given me a verse that calls Yahshua “A” God. Proj de ton uion o qronoj sou o qeoj, pros de ton huion ho thronos sou ho theos, (lit. “but regarding the Son [He says], the throne of you the God. . . .”). Both grammatically and contextually is to see the articular nominative qeoj, theos as carrying vocative force of direct address: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” This is the overwhelming consensus among objective scholarship. And this is why the translating teams of the 20 English versions listed on BibleGateway render this verse as follows:
1. NIV
But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.2. NAS
8But of the Son He says,”YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.3. MSG
But he says to the Son, You're God, and on the throne for good; your rule makes everything right. You love it when things are right; you hate it when things are wrong.4. AMP
8But as to the Son, He says to Him, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever (to the ages of the ages), and the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of absolute righteousness (of justice and straightforwardness).5. NLT
8But to his Son he says, “Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. Your royal power is expressed in righteousness.6. KJV
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.7. ESV
8But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.8. CEV
But God says about his Son, “You are God, and you will rule as King forever! Your royal power brings about justice.9. NKJV
8 But to the Son He says:“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.10. KJ21
8But unto the Son He saith, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom.11. ASV
8 but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.12. YLT
8and unto the Son: `Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age; a scepter of righteousness [is] the scepter of thy reign.13. DARBY
8but as to the Son, Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age, and a sceptre of uprightness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.14. NLV
8 But about His Son, He says, “O God, Your throne will last forever. Whatever You say in Your nation is right and good.15. HCSB
8 but about the Son: Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of justice.16. NIRV
8 But here is what he says about the Son. “You are God. Your throne will last for ever and ever. Your kingdom will be ruled by what is right.17. WYC
8 But to the Son he saith, God, thy throne is into the world of world [into the world of worlds]; a rod of equity is the rod of thy realm;18. WE
8But here is what God says about his Son: `O God, you will sit and rule for ever. You will rule in the right way.19. NIVUK
8But about the Son he says, Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the sceptre of your kingdom.20. TNIV
8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.None render Ho theos as “A God”, that would be bad grammar.
Regarding context:
HEBREWS 1:1-11
1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,
2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.
5For to which of the angels did He ever say,
“YOU ARE MY SON,
TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”?
And again,
“I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM
AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”?
6And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
“AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.”
7And of the angels He says,
“WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS,
AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE.”
8But of the Son He says,
“YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
9″YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;
THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU
WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.”
10And,
“YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH,
AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
11THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN;
AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT,
12AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP;
LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED
BUT YOU ARE THE SAME,
AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.”This short passage records these things about Yahshua:
1.He made the world(s) (v2)
2.He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His [Father’s] nature (v3)
3.He “upholds all things by the word of His power” – He sustains the entire Universe. Its estimated that 100,000,000 solar systems exist, each with approximately 100,000,000 planetary bodies and Yahshua sustains every atom!
4.All the angels of God worship Him. Angels are forbidden to worship anyone But God (Rev 22:8-9).
5.The pre-incarnate Word of God is clearly identified as having “laid the foundations of the earth” the Heavens are also “the works of HIS hands” in v10. This is a quote from Psa 102:25 – and is a verse written about YHWH.
6.He is immutable (v12)None of these could be true of any being of inferior ontology to Almighty God. In fact a sharp distinction is drawn between Yahshua and angels, and there are no beings with ontology intemediate to God and angels described in scripture. Hebrews 1:8 (the correct rendering) fits naturally and harmoniously within the context of this passage.
The Father calls Yahshua “God” because He is….it's as simple as that.
Blessings
Hi Is 1:18, Are you not getting hung up on pedantics? Please answer a question for me. Did God (Yahweh) make Moses God to Pharoah? Exodus 7:1My comment, derived from this, was, that in the same way that God (Yahweh) made Moses God to Pharoah, he has made Jesus God to us.
The fact that I said “a God”, picking up the way it is expressed in the KJV, is beside the point. Some translations read “as God” or “thee God”. The issue is, the Scriptures state that the LORD (Yahweh) made Moses God to Pharoah.
Based on this, why do you see a problem with the LORD (Yahweh) making Jesus God to us, as conveyed in Hebrews 1:8?
According to your viewpoint, it seems tha
t in verse 9, you have Yahweh, annointing Yahweh. Please tell me who annointed who and what did the annointing signify?Whilst we are here in Hebrews, would you also please let me know how Christ can be “appointed heir of all things”, if He is the Supreme God, who owns all things. How can he inherit that which your view alleges He already owns? How can He be both the benefactor and the heir?
Also whilst thinking about this, please let me know how Christ, if He is the Supreme God; the Almighty God, can have a head who is God? 1 Corinthains 11:3 says “the head of Christ is God”
If God, according to your concept is three persons in one, then this text should be read as: “the head of Christ is the trinity” or “the head of Christ is Father, Son and Holy Spirit” or “the head of Christ is three persons in one person”
Just one last question. In John 20:17 we read: “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.“
Who was Jesus referring to here when He said, “My God”? Was He saying, “My three in one God”? Who was the God that Jesus was going to ascend to?
May reason and clear thinking prevail, in terms of Proverbs 4:5-7.
Peace be with you.
Elidad
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 09 2006,01:45) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 09 2006,00:45) Quote (Elidad @ Sep. 08 2006,23:54) But as Nick has pointed out, he is referred to as a God.
Hello Elidad,
Can you please point me to a verse in the Bible where Yahshua is referred to as “a God”?Thanks
Hi HICITC,
Here is what I specifically asked…PS; any comment on Heb 1:10, Ps 102:25?
Dear Is 1:18,I thought I made myself clear. All of creation was spoken into existance. In the beginning, the Father begat the Son, the Word, and through the Word and by the Word all of creation came into being by the will of the Father through the unction of the Holy Spirit.
Oxy, yes I agree, Jesus was born a holy seed and as a Son of God. But in my mind anyway, not as the Word or Christ (anointed) of God. At least not til his 30th year and the Anointed one descended upon him, of which, in keeping in step with the scriptures..John the baptist bore witness.
So the calling on his life was there, as he grew in knowledge and understanding and went about his father's business. But he didn't cast out a devil, heal the sick, walk on water, calm a storm or feed five thousand til after the enduement of this power.
Nick, I certainly did not go looking for triune evidence, it slowly began to form in my own understanding. I've been around the mountain a few times and had some experiences that left me a bit dissillusioned with the many voices out there. So at some point I decide to see what I could see for myself..and be prayful. I'll say this right now, I do not believe my forming of theology is inerrant, so please take what I say with a grain of salt. I find that in some ways my theology tends to change as I stay open for further understanding.
So there is no 'why would I do this'..my understanding comes from scripture. My use of the talmud and/or kabbalah are simply uses that may shed some light on the scriptures.
So I ask, in what way do you see what I wrote as not in line with the scriptures?
Quote (942767 @ Sep. 09 2006,05:09) I agree with you that the “trinity doctrine” is a misunderstanding of the scriptures. In Matthew 28:19 Jesus states: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”. The emphasis is “in the name of” and that name is “Jesus”. The name Jesus when translated means “Jehovah is salvation”. God's purpose for this world is the salvation of His children from the consequences of sin. The Father and the Son are one in this purpose. The Holy Ghost is not a third person but is God's personality or Spirit. (1 Co. 2:10-11) We see the Apostle Peter baptized in the name of Jesus in Acts 2:38. This implies oneness in the purpose of salvation and not trinity. The name is not three different names but one and that name is “Jesus”.
God revealed to us who Jesus is through the Apostle Peter in Matthew 16:13-17 and that is that he is “the Christ the Son of the living God”. If Jesus claimed to be God, He would be contradicting what God our Father has revealed to us through these scriptures.
I know my Lord is worthy of all praise and without him we could not be reconciled to our Father. He is not God but a man who is the express image of God's person. (Hebrews 1:3)
Dear 942767,Do not get caught up in the misgiving of the world. Jesus is God. For the Father gave the Son the full authority of the Godhead, making the Son God over all of creation. And to not call him God in not of God. For no man can come unto the Father, but through the Son. The Son is the perfect will of the Father. And the Son, by the unction of the Holy Spirit will subdue all things by the will of the Father. And he will deliver the kingdom unto the Father and the Father will be all in all. For there is only one God. What that means is once all the enemies of the Father have been vanquished, once the complete will of the Father has been fulfilled, the Son will be a Son unto the Father and the Father will be a God and Father unto the Son. For there is only one God.
1 Cor. 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Hi J,
You said
” the Anointed one descended upon him,”Jesus is the anointed one, the messiah or Christ.
The anointing Spirit of God, the finger of God, is by whom he was anointed.Here is the main problem I think when it comes to the trinity. Did Jesus exist forever? Was he even before the beginning. Was the Son without beginning or did he have a beginning? This is where I believe people need to seek the truth. Because there is enough proof using the scriptures to prove that Jesus was made, and that he was the beginning of creation.
Quote (heiscomingintheclouds @ Sep. 09 2006,17:53) Nick, did you ever answer my question? Is Jesus God. Should we call Jesus, the Son of God, God?
Hi H,
Why should we call our Lord, God?Hi J,
You say
“Christ is the Word that was in the beginning with God (residing in the bosom of God)”
To be WITH
is not
to be IN“In supposing, the holy seed birthed by the virgin Mary, was not Christ the Lord, but the second man Adam, “
Scripture says Jesus was conceived in Mary, just as John the baptist was in Elizabeth.“Without going into much more length, I personally think of God as a Triune-Being. Triune in that there is a distinction in the work or offices..even as hinted at in 1 Corinth 12:4-6..namely, 'the same Spirit' 'the same Lord' and 'the same God'. If I had to put a word-label on these distinctions, I would call the Son-Being: Word, the Spirit-Being: Wisdom, and the Father-Being: Will.”
“Other indicators would be that we are made in the image and likeness of God. Jesus said, Hear oh Isreal, the Lord our God is One. so there would be only a slight variation in interpretation when considering whether God is three persons in one Being, or one person in three beings. “
“When I consider tri-fold verses of teachings, I can seem to see a correlation between the triune being of man and the Triune Being of God. One has to always bear in mind that just as we bear in ourselves a triune being, this triune make-up is indivisible. God is One. As the Word of God Jesus could rightly say, when you have seen me you seen the Father..and at the same time say, I go to the Father.”
We should not dare to design God according to our mind but seek how God reveals Himself and His Son in Scripture. God was not made in our image. God pours out His own Spirit and works through that Spirit on earth. The Spirit is called the finger of God in Lk 11 and is never separate from God as another nameless person. We should not divide God, who as Spirit can be lied to and blasphemed, as we are not allowed to God beyond revelation.[Jn 2.9]
well, theologians been at this for quite some spell.
let's pose the question. when the Word became flesh, was it at Jesus' birth or at the baptism in Jordan?
If John the baptist bore witness to that light, which was the Word, the Christ, by whom all things were made, did John bear witness at Jesus' birth? Is this when the Word became flesh?
In keeping with the context of John 1, the chronology here, brings up 'And the Word became flesh' only after John was on the scene as the witness bearer of that Anointed one lighting upon him after submersion. Then came the words found elsewhere at this happening, 'This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased'.
When the Word became flesh, it may well mean that this was when the Anointed Word of God possessed the Son of Man.
In Hebrews we read, 'he upholds all things by the Word of his power'. Also, (Ephesians 1:10) 'that in the dispensation of the fullness of time, he might gather together all things in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him'..
If Christ is forever synonomous with Jesus, so that Jesus always was the Christ (The Anointed One), then the implication of the above mentioned scripture must be that we think all things in heaven and earth are going to be gathered together in a glorified man named Jesus. Jesus must be pretty gigantic huh?
I do believe that Jesus as the spotless lamb of God, took within himself the Anointed Word (Christ) in the chronology of John's gospel. In this way it is fitting for the passages to speak of 'God the Father and his son Jesus Christ'. While bearing also complete integrity to: 'you have seen me, you have seen the Father also'. The Word of the living God became flesh, but the will of the living God, that worked the works as the express image of his Person..was of the spiritual dimension and did not become flesh par-se.
Hence: John 1:13
So when people say that Jesus was fully man and fully God..I think I disagree. Jesus became 100 per-cent of the Word of God..and the vehicle of God's Word becoming flesh, exemplied the will of the Father 100 per-cent. Yet the Father in him, is the same Father who is above all, through all and in you all..I believe that is Corinthians. So although the will of the Father was decisive in the life of Jesus..the Father was not held 100 per-cent to the bodily sheath of Jesus. Immanent and also transcendent. In this way, not 'fully' God.
If Jesus was fully God, there is no comprehesible sense for him to 'go to the Father who is greater than I', is there?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
